<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Stanford Technology Law Review</title>
      <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:22:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Taking the &quot;Long View&quot; on the Fourth Amendment: Stored Records and the Sanctity of the Home</title>
         <description>In the wake of the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are aggressively pursuing “demand response” (DR) energy programs aimed at reducing peak energy demand. Demand response systems convey information about market conditions through pricing or reliability signals to customers, who in turn, hopefully, alter their electricity consumption choices. In particular DR programs are aimed at shifting the time at which customers use energy through the implementation of time-varying tariffs. Armed with information about the time-varying cost of electricity residential and commercial customers are expected to reduce energy usage and/or shift their usage to non-peak, less costly, hours. Such shifts, even absent reductions in overall consumption, will reduce the likelihood of energy brown and black outs and provide direct savings to consumers. Technologies to enable the demand response system, including  advanced metering research and development [OpenAMI] and sensor and control technologies development [DRETD], are under development. These technologies will be coupled with a
communication and network infrastructure that supports the multicast of real-time pricing information, and the aggregation of energy usage and billing information.
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/02/taking_the_long_view_on_the_fo.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/02/taking_the_long_view_on_the_fo.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2007 Symposium</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Symposium Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Olmsteadian Seizure Clause: The Fourth Amendment and the Seizure of Intangible Property</title>
         <description>The Fourth Amendment&apos;s Seizure clause is mired in the Eighteenth century. Its
counterpart, the Search clause, has evolved through a steady progression of Supreme
Court cases from Katz to Berger to Kyllo, no longer to be confined to the property-based
notions of privacy embodied in Olmstead v. United States. Instead it is sensitive to
modern privacy concerns by extending Constitutional protection to situations that satisfy
the reasonable expectation of privacy test. While imperfect, the evolved Search clause
has kept the protections of the Fourth Amendment relevant in an age of digital evidence,
ubiquitous communication networks, and increasingly sophisticated and invasive
surveillance capabilities.</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/01/the_olmsteadian_seizure_clause.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/01/the_olmsteadian_seizure_clause.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2007 Symposium</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Symposium Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Rights Chipped Away: RFID and Identification Documents</title>
         <description>The ACLU of Northern California has been a leader in generating public and legislative
attention to the privacy, personal safety, and financial security risks associated with the
use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology in government-issued
identification documents, such as drivers&apos; licenses and student ID cards.</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/01/rfid_technology.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2008/01/rfid_technology.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2007 Symposium</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Symposium Articles</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Working Papers</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>First Principles of Communications Privacy</title>
         <description>Under current Fourth Amendment doctrine, parties to a communication enjoy
constitutional protection against government surveillance only when they have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications. This paper discusses the
insufficiency of the reasonable expectation of privacy test in the context of modern
communications. Significantly, courts have required that communications media be
virtually invulnerable before affording them Fourth Amendment protection.
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/06/a_first_principles_approach_to.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/06/a_first_principles_approach_to.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2007 Symposium</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Symposium Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Patentability of Enantiomers: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry</title>
         <description>Pharmaceutical sales constitute a $600-billion-per-year global industry.  Less well-known is that more than half of the drugs listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia contain a class of compounds known as chiral molecules as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.  Chiral molecules have special chemical and pharmacological properties that raise questions as to their patentability.  When chiral molecules are synthesized in the laboratory, two distinct mirror-image molecules are formed called “enantiomers.”  Although each enantiomer may have different levels of therapeutic activity and toxicity, technical challenges to separating the enantiomers caused most early chiral drugs to be sold as mixtures of the two molecules, or racemic mixtures.  </description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/02/the_patentability_of_enantiome.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/02/the_patentability_of_enantiome.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Spectrum Commons in Theory and Practice</title>
         <description>The radio spectrum is a scarce resource that has been historically allocated through command-and-control regulation. Today, it is widely accepted that this type of allocation is as inefficient for spectrum as it would be for paper or land. Many commentators and scholars, most famously Ronald Coase, have advocated that a more efficient allocation would be achieved if government sold the rights to the spectrum and allowed a free market in radio property to develop.
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/02/the_spectrum_commons_in_theory.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/02/the_spectrum_commons_in_theory.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Anticipatory Electronic Surveillance in Anglo-American Law</title>
         <description>The principles behind the Fourth Amendment&apos;s Search and Seizure clause are found throughout Anglo-American jurisprudence. This body of law reflects a history of attempting to harmonize the seemingly conflicting governmental goals of communication privacy on the one hand, and protecting the public safety and national security on the other. Nations adopt surveillance doctrines, driven largely by the realities of the technology. As technologies change, assumptions behind doctrines can become outdated. 
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory_electronic_survei.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2007/01/anticipatory_electronic_survei.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">2007 Symposium</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Symposium Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Regulating Access to Databases Through Antitrust Law</title>
         <description>It is largely uncontroversial that the &quot;creative&quot; effort in a database will be protected by copyright. However, any effort to extend protection to purely factual databases creates difficulties in determining the proper method and scope of protection. This Paper argues that antitrust law can be used to supplement intellectual property law in maintaining the &quot;access-incentive&quot; balance with respect to databases. It starts from the premise that a trend toward &quot;TRIPs-plus&quot; rights in databases, whatever its form, is inevitable. The reason is a simple, but compelling one: business needs shape the law. Various means of database access regulation are explored and contrasted with antitrust law. This Paper concludes that antitrust offers an alternative that more accurately reflects commercial expectations. However, regulators need to be aware of the limitations of applying antitrust law to a regime delicately tuned with pre-existing endogenous checks as well as the effects of their application on innovation by those spurred on the assurance of monopoly profits. In this regard, antitrust law must prove itself to be capable of sophisticated regulation if its interference in the database industry is to be justified.</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/11/regulating_access_to_databases.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/11/regulating_access_to_databases.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Search Engine Economy&apos;s Achilles Heel?</title>
         <description>In today&apos;s Internet economy, search engines play an increasingly important role in helping consumers locate goods and services.  However, search engines may also allow unauthorized online retailers to misuse trademarks as keywords and metatags in ways that can boost their placement in search engine results and increase online sales. For instance, a person other than a trademark holder may purchase a trademarked word or phrase as a search engine keyword (keyword misuse), or may insert them as hidden HTML code on webpages (metatag misuse). Where a website that misuses trademarks in this manner then offers the trademarked goods or services for sale online without a license from the original producer, consumers may be deceived as to the source of those goods and services, and the value of the trademark might be diminished.
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/10/the_search_engine_economys_ach.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/10/the_search_engine_economys_ach.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>New Insights on the &quot;Death&quot; of Obviousness: An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions</title>
         <description>This Note presents an empirical study of district court opinions that reached the question of obviousness--one of the core requirements for patent validity--n patent suits. The doctrine of obviousness has befuddled courts and litigants since the Supreme Court&apos;s 1851 statement that patentable invention requires some nebulous level of ingenuity and skill. By the 1970s, frustration with the obviousness doctrine had reached fever pitch, and Congress responded by centralizing patent appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/07/new_insights_on_the_death_of_o.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/07/new_insights_on_the_death_of_o.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Student Notes</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:07:10 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Immorality of Theft, the Amorality of Infringement</title>
         <description>Morality, an individual&apos;s subjective sense of right and wrong, is the biggest influence in shaping law-related behavior. And not surprisingly, both psychologists and legal theorists have begun to explore the links between personal morality and large-scale copyright infringement. But to date, this analysis has not rigorously answered some basic questions. Why do people believe that theft is immoral? And why do so many differentiate theft from infringement?</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/07/the_immorality_of_theft_the_am.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/07/the_immorality_of_theft_the_am.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Student Notes</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Interpreting Grokster: Limits on the Scope of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement</title>
         <description><![CDATA[One year ago, on June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd . The unanimous decision held that Grokster and StreamCast, the distributors of popular peer-to-peer "file sharing" software, could be held secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by their users if Grokster and StreamCast took active steps to induce infringement. This document outlines the limits on the scope of secondary copyright liability that follow from a close reading of the Grokster decision together with the landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), and patent law precedents relating to inducement liability. The Center for Democracy and Technology believes the legal principles set forth in this article represent the best reading of current law in the wake of Grokster and that careful observance of these principles by lower courts would serve the Grokster Court's goal of ensuring that secondary liability for copyright infringement "does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having lawful promise."

STLR is proud to present: <a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Perspectives/06_STLR_3/CDT-grokster.pdf">Interpreting Grokster: Limits on the Scope of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement</a>, a perspective by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).]]></description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/06/interpreting_grokster_limits_o.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/06/interpreting_grokster_limits_o.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Perspectives</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Deference Overcome: Courts&apos; Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO</title>
         <description><![CDATA[This paper examines six decisions in which district courts have held patent claims invalid based on PTO-considered art. Part II describes the origin and limitations of the methodology used to select and analyze particular cases. Part III summarizes the pertinent law relating to the presumption of validity and anticipation, and it briefly considers the PTO's inter partes patent reexamination process as an administrative analog of patent validity litigation. It ends with a summary of the factors weighing for and against the challenger. Part IV explores a few policy reasons that challengers should not be discouraged from relying on PTO-considered art, including the limited inquiry of patent examination, the PTO's admission that it issues invalid claims, and the economic efficiency of relying on PTO-considered art to invalidate patent claims. In Part V, the cases are described in terms of how the courts analyzed the issue of anticipation and how they addressed, if at all, the issue of deference to the PTO. Finally, conclusions and opportunities for further research are presented in Part VI.

STLR is proud to present: <a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_2/BuchananJ-Deference.pdf">Deference Overcome: Courts' Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO</a> by J. Michael Buchanan. ]]></description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/04/deference_overcome_courts_inva.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/04/deference_overcome_courts_inva.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>No Analog Analogue: Searchable Digital Archives and Amazon&apos;s Unprecedented Search Inside the Book Program as Fair Use</title>
         <description><![CDATA[ This paper begins with an overview of Amazon's prior experiments with e-books, the way in which the Search Inside the Book database is created, and how that database manifests itself to the Amazon user. Part II analyzes the Search Inside the Book program under current copyright law and concludes that the program does infringe copyrights in the indexed works. Part III argues that programs like Search Inside the Book, though infringing, actually serve the purposes of copyright law, and should not create liability for the providers of such programs. Finally, part IV applies the fair use doctrine to Search Inside the Book, assuming that the existing copy-protection measures are improved as indicated and ultimately finding this unconventional program protected as fair use.

STLR is proud to present: <a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_1/KT-fair%20use.pdf">No Analog Analogue: Searchable Digital Archives and Amazon's Unprecedented Search Inside the Book Program as Fair Use</a> by Jonathan Kerry-Tyerman. ]]></description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/02/no_analog_analogue_searchable.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2006/02/no_analog_analogue_searchable.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Student Notes</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Managing Risk to Reputation: The Challenge of the Internet for Legal Recruiting</title>
         <description>This article argues that corporate law firms do not appreciate the changing world of legal recruiting. The rise of information technology means that law students function as sophisticated consumers of information on law firm life. Given that monetary compensation at major corporate firms is almost identical, students&apos; perception of lifestyle can have a major influence on their valuation of firms. Consequently, firms need to adapt by more carefully managing the type of information that might be accessible to students, and their general reputation within the student community.
</description>
         <link>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2005/09/managing_risk_to_reputation_th.html</link>
         <guid>http://stlr.stanford.edu/2005/09/managing_risk_to_reputation_th.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Feature Articles</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
