Comments for Stanford Technology Law Review

Comment on Access to Bio-Knowledge - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Joseph Page

Joseph Page — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:54:26 +0000

Last weekend at the backetball tournament in Las Vegas a friend of mine who supplies complex chemicals to drug manufactures – was delighted to find details of a drug component his customer was interested in – get this – in Google Patents. I walked in the room and he said: “God I love google patents!” He explained to me in the old days, to find details of this drug element would be very difficult. Yet, in less than an hour, he had the details he needed and was able to sell 50 kilograms ($200,000) based upon what he found in the published patent. While one must be very careful to not infringe another’s patent claims, there remains a HUGE amount of readily available information in published patents and this benefits all scientists in the community. The body of science contained in patent publications is, fresh, leading edge, updated weekly, easily searchable, remarkably detailed, et cetera. Patents are not just about “slowing innovation and making health care expensive” – indeed, I’d argue it does just the opposite. I anjoyed the article – thanks.

Comment on Increasing Certainty and Harnessing Private Information in the U.S. Patent System - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Joseph Page

Joseph Page — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:30:33 +0000

Excellent read on an important topic. Thanks for that. As professionals, we all must contribute to providing certainty and clarity in the patent system. However, sometimes our friends the ’supremes’ don’t seem to agree with us. Nevertheless, we keep pushing.

Comment on “And I See Through Your Brain” - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Saqib Ali

Saqib Ali — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:53 +0000

Professor Erin Murphy’s response to Professor Perlin talk was excellent. Do listen to the audio when it is available on the website.

Comment on “And I See Through Your Brain” - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by robert weisberg

robert weisberg — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:34:50 +0000

In his fine paper on consent and competency issues in regard to brain-imaging, Prof. Perlin suggests some possible analogies to cases like Schmerber v. California, where various specific procedural rights4th amendment, 5th amendment, are considered (and then tossed)in the context of drunk driving. But Prof. Perlin then stresses general due process as the liekly ruliong principle for the brain-imaging issues. I think he’s right to do so, but I think it may be worth playing out some more specific analogies to 4th, 5th, and even 6th amendment doctrines just to illuminate the issue more. Ther are various vserrions of the privleghe against self-incrimination that might be useful. And although this may seem fancful, some of the fourthh amendment issues involving high-tech devices fior procuring private information through the walls (literal and figurative) of zones of privacty may also be interesting to apply. I will do so in my panelist comments.

A second point: It’s interesting that the law is somewhat settled for competency issues in terms of psychiatric exams–or at at least the issues are heavily litigated. And Prof. Perlin rightly notes that no such legal analsys has yet emerged for brain-imaging. This is partly because of a historical lag, but it’s still curious that in some ways the well-developed doctrine on the psychiatric interview might suggest that we all have a great deal of faith in the accuracy and reliability of the psychiatric interview. But that is hardly the general view of psychiatry in the courtroom, at least in terms of NGI verdicts, and it would be odd if we avoided the imaging context because the science is too uncertain, as if we were confident that the old psychiatry is “certain.”

Comment on First Principles of Communications Privacy - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Matthew Petrillo

Matthew Petrillo — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:42:46 +0000

Last month Charter Communications announced that it would track its ISP customers’ online usage (web sites visited, search terms entered, etc.) through a process called “deep packet inspection.” As I understand it, this technology allows an ISP to inspect each packet of data transmitted from a subscribers’ computer, extract certain data, connect it with a unique user ID, store that information, and provide it to an online marketing firm, NebuAd, in order to create a detailed marketing profile of each subscriber.
Charter had planned to launch this program in small markets in California, Texas, Connecticut and Massachussets, but has run into opposition from Congress, the Connecticut Attorney General, and citizens.
More recently, I participated in a news conference held by the CT Attorney General, who called for a suspension of the planned pilot program on grounds that it may violate two fedeal laws.
Many of the reporters in the room that day questioned why such activity is a big deal. “Isn’t this just like Amazon.com tracking what you buy online?” Was a typical question.
I found these questions disturbing. Beyond reflecting a limited understanding of the technology and its capabilities, I believe many people are missing a broader, more serious and (most likely) unintended consequence of deep packet inspection for commercial use.
If we allow any company to sift through our data communications and extract, at its discretion, the bits that may be of commercial interest to retailers and advertisers haven’t we effectively relinquished our expectation of privacy in regard to all Internet-based communications? And, more importantly, based on the interpretation of Katz as described here, are we then opening the Internet entirely to government inspection–in effect nullifying the 4th Amendment for the electronic age?
I encourage STLR faculty and students to explore this issue, especially in relation to the issues raised by Jennifer Granick and others on this page.

Comment on First Principles of Communications Privacy - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Clare

Clare — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:08:29 +0000

Not a lawyer here, but it seems to me the expectation of privacy should be presumptive. Certain things are obvious. You have no expectation on a public street or in a building open to the public. But outside of public venues, whether you are sitting in front of your computer at home, talking to your wife in the fenced backyard, or using your cell phone in an area well away from other people, there should always exist a reasonable expectation, regardless of how widespread intrusive technology is.

Comment on Anticipatory Electronic Surveillance in Anglo-American Law - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Clare

Clare — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:46:36 +0000

I’m not seeing the distinction that lawmakers used initially. Are they saying that simply recording the date, time, origin and destination of a communication is less intrusive that capturing the actual communication? To me, that’s a difference of very few degrees.

Comment on The Patentability of Enantiomers - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Clare

Clare — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:31:40 +0000

If I understand correctly, and there is a case to be made for non-renewal of certain pharmaceutical patents, then the general public is the potential winner. It would open up the possibilty that large numbers of patented drugs could be released for conversion to generic forms.

Comment on Anticipatory Electronic Surveillance in Anglo-American Law - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Jason Falk

Jason Falk — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:34:50 +0000

Electronic surveillance unfortunately is a modern “necessary” evil. It is a balancing act and the benefits have pluses and minuses. I think having so much personal stored data is a real concern but without it society becomes unstable in other ways.

Comment on Rights “Chipped” Away - From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials by Walt Augustinowicz

Walt Augustinowicz — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:41:00 +0000

There are many benefits to RFID cards. Such as readers being able to be located in areas where magnetic strip readers cannot. Such as salt spray affected port locations or out it the rain. I think they are around to stay. That being said my company manufactures a simple sleeve or badgeholder to at least prevent your card from being read while it is in your wallet, purse, or pocket. http://www.idstronghold.com for more details.