Mar
5
William Blumenthal, live blog
Posted by Dirk Avery at 12:24 pm under Innovation, Internet, Technology.
March 5, 2008, 12:20
12:23: This looks interesting: FTC 2003 Report on Innovation. We are moving away from “balancing” competition law and IP, to “aligning” the two. I like aligning. It’s very business like.
12:28: FTC thought that patent quality was on the decline with negative effects: discouraging innovation, elevating cost and leading to unnecessary licensing. The differences between pharma (few patents) and electrical (tons of patent), put disproportionate burden on electrical industry, if patent system is broke.
12:31: Ah, we’re getting to patent reform. FTC wants to get rid of submarine patents, have post issuance review, and revise obviousness (I suspect they were not TSM fans). SCOTUS has already worked on obviousness.
12:36: DOJ 2007 Report on Innovation. Interesting: Standards setting bodies and competition law. If you include a patent in a standard, that obviously has competition law implications (such as if someone won’t license). But, what do you do if the group decides on terms of group cross-licensing? Is that illegal price fixing? No. But, has competition law implications.
12:40: Supreme Court IP/competition cases: Independent Ink, Schering and Tamoxifen. Hatch-Waxman Act allowing reverse-payment settlements in pharma (really just buying off).
12:45: Patent-competition cases: eBay, MedImmune (licensing strong arm tactics leading to standing for declaratory action), Apotex (cert denied), and KSR (obviousness).
12:48: Standard settings abuses. Unocal, naughty, naughty. They claimed the technology was in the public domain and it was because their pending patent hadn’t issued yet. It subsequently issued and they went to claim royalties from everyone. Ouch. Rambus, on entrance to standards setting meetings. How FTC treats the issue depends on the rules of the standards setting body.
12:50: Broadband connectivity. If someone owns something and they don’t want to share, default rule, of course, is that you can’t. If it’s really needed, okay. What about telecomm common carrier requirements? Well, we need to look very closely to see if the reasoning applies to broadband. Um, what is more importan? Talking on the phone or using the Internet? We’re in the 21st century here.
12:54: Google/DoubleClick. FTC didn’t oppose the merger because they didn’t think it created issues. The Europeans, of course, disagreed. Would the Europeans disagree if they were European companies? Hmmm… Would the FTC disagree if they were European companies?
12:55: Q&A. Good question, how does jurisdiction work between DOJ and FTC? Solicitor General decides. Sometimes there is overlap, sometimes one agency does it. FTC and DOJ are in daily contact to coordinate. FTC and DOJ are like spouses. Ah, now I get it. Depends on who has the most expertise to handle the problem. When they have equal expertise, they flip a coin, play rock-paper-scissors, or go with whoever has possession. Seems more loosey-goosey than I would have thought.
1:03: Keeley asks a question. Does the FTC have a position on the new PTO rules? No. Staff likes them generally because they’re moving in the direction they like.
1:04: The end! (I’m sure Keeley’s post is much better. Refer there if you want the real scoop.)
Related
- Alexandrians in action: Google Books
- Live blogging: William Blumenthal, GC of FTC
- Comcast hires seat-fillers at FCC
- Maybe change is good
I stand corrected on the EU’s review of the Google and DoubleClick merger. Obviously my point is now moot.
Easy Hydroponics - Organic Iguana Juice hydroponics iguana juice nutrients gardening…
very intresting stuff to read…