This month, we are excited to present a fireside chat with two senior executives from Verizon: Executive Vice President Tom Tauke and Assistant Vice President Link Hoewing. Among other topics, Tom and Link talk about the role ISPs should play when it comes to discouraging copyright infringement online, and the federal regulations that are today both encouraging and constraining innovation in wireless and wireline service. UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
Archive for the ‘Program Discussions’ Category
The Federal Trade Commission just released its much-anticipated second report on patent system reform. And, on this edition of the IP Colloquium, two of the principal drafters of that report — Suzanne Michel of the Office of Policy Planning, and Deputy General Counsel William Cohen — join UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman to talk about its specific reform recommendations.
Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu has been one of the leading voices in the debate over network neutrality. He is a scholar of both copyright and telecommunications law; and, over the years, he has developed some pretty influential views about how legal rules impact innovation. Tim just wrote a summary of his views in the form of pop-press book entitled, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. On this edition of the IP Colloquium, he joins UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman to talk about that book, and the ideas it articulates about innovation and competition.
In this edition of the IP Colloquium, we present a conversation with the chief legal officers from three of the major video game studios: Steve Bene of Electronic Arts; Seth Krauss of Take-Two; and Chris Walther of Activision Blizzard. Among other things, we’ll talk about the complicated relationship between game manufacturers and the big three console producers; and we’ll think about the licensing arrangements under which video game companies make games based on intellectual property like the Harry Potter characters or the names and likenesses of NFL players. UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
In this edition of the IP Colloquium, the Honorable Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, joins us to discuss a wide range of legal and policy issues related to the nation’s patent system. The conversation is a frank and open discussion, with exchanges about (among other things) the need for Federal Circuit judges to experience district court proceedings in order to meaningfully evaluate them, and the possibility that independent creation is in fact evidence of patent obviousness. UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
In this edition of the IP Colloquium, we tackle the contentious question of whether Google should be held responsible for the copyright infringement that its YouTube website facilitates. We engage the issues by drawing on excerpts from the voluminous materials filed over the past three years in the Viacom/Google litigation. Specifically, we’ll consider how both Viacom and Google frame the basic case; and we’ll critically explore each side’s position with respect to the storage, knowledge, and control issues raised by section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
Copyright law has long recognized in authors an unwaivable right to terminate certain contracts and licensing agreements. A handful of high-profile cases have already called substantial attention to this termination provision, with disputes touching such iconic characters as Superman, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Lassie, and Winnie the Pooh. In this edition of the IP Colloquium, copyright guru David Nimmer joins UC Berkeley Professor Peter Menell and UCLA Professor Doug Lichtman in an informal conversation about the termination right, its controversies, and the implications for modern copyright practice.
Copyright law’s first sale doctrine might seem straightforward. On its face, it tells us that, after the first sale of a particular object that embodies a copyrighted work, the copyright holder’s rights are exhausted, and the relevant embodiment is therefore free to flow in the stream of commerce. But what happens if the original buyer agrees by contract not to resell? And what if the original sale is not a sale at all, but instead is characterized by the parties as a license? And what if that embodiment is not physical but instead digital? On this edition of the IP Colloquium, we set out to understand the first sale doctrine, tracing its public policy justifications and comparing copyright’s approach to that of antitrust. Guests include UC Irvine’s Tony Reese, Boston University’s Michael Salinger, and George Mason Law Professor Josh Wright. UCLA’s Doug Lichtman hosts.
The Bilski case has understandably generated an enormous wealth of commentary, including eighty-plus amicus briefs, dozens of thoughtful articles, and hundreds of blog posts, CLE seminars, and the like. Here at IP Colloquium, we therefore thought that the best way for us to add value would be to do something admittedly unconventional. Specifically, the Supreme Court has released a transcript of the Bilski oral argument but has not yet released actual audio of the event. Our thought was that one of the best ways to learn about the case would be to listen to the arguments the parties actually made and to hear the questions that Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues actually posed. So, this month, we stage a reading of the transcript, with a dozen UCLA law students lending their voices for each relevant attorney or Justice. UCLA law professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
The music, publishing and motion picture industries are each today struggling to identify new business models that might replace existing mechanisms for funding professional content. In this edition of the Intellectual Property Colloquium, we consider the legal and strategic roadblocks that might stand in the way. Guests include: Brad Smith, General Counsel, Microsoft; Scott Martin, Executive Vice President, Intellectual Property, Paramount Pictures; and Dan Cooper, Vice President, Legal & Business Affairs, MySpace. UCLA law professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
Last year, RDR books endeavored to publish an unauthorized encyclopedia of all things Harry Potter. Warner Brothers filed suit, and the resulting litigation turned out to be a fascinating fight over the precise contours of copyright law’s “derivative work” right. In this audio, we look back at that now-settled case, using it as a launching point from which to consider not only the scope of the derivative work right, but also some practical questions about when and whether a copyright holder ought to enforce such a right as against fan-produced materials. Guests include Warner Brothers’ Senior Vice President Jeremy Williams, and opposing counsel from the RDR case, Anthony Falzone of the Stanford Fair Use Project. UCLA law professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
Every year, it seems, at least one major copyright case brings to the fore the complexity, importance, and unpredictability of fair use analysis. That case this year? Shepard Fairey v. The Associated Press. In this edition of the Intellectual Property Colloquium, we dig into the Fairey fair use fight, talking with Mark Lemley, who represents the artist; Dale Cendali, who represents the AP; and, for some outside perspective, Ken Richieri, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at the New York Times. UCLA law professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
One of the most contentious issues in the debate over patent reform is the question of how, if at all, Congress should change the way courts calculate patent damages. To understand that fight, in this audio we examine a series of edited excerpts from testimony recently given before the Senate and, separately, the Federal Trade Commission, all on the question of damages reform. The goal here is not to advocate for a particular legislative outcome, but instead to understand why damages calculations are so hard, and to explore the spectrum of possible responses. UCLA Law School’s Doug Lichtman hosts.
Ten years ago, the rights and responsibilities associated with copyright protection were largely defined by federal law. Today, while those explicit rules are obviously still important, a meaningful discussion of copyright protection can’t help but also include technological protections — like the encryption technologies that serve to discourage consumers from making unauthorized copies of their DVDs, or the watermarks that to some degree allow copyright holders to detect when their audio or video content shows up without permission on a site like YouTube. These so-called “digital rights management” or DRM technologies are impacting every aspect of the copyright equation. On this edition of the show, we therefore set out to take a comprehensive tour of the technology, law, and strategy of DRM. Guests include Ed Felten from Princeton University and Randy Picker from the University of Chicago. UCLA’s Doug Lichtman hosts.
Joel Tenenbaum looks a lot like every other defendant who has been accused by the music industry of illegally sharing copyrighted work online, but with one key difference: his defense attorney is Harvard Law School Professor Charlie Nesson, and Nesson is out to turn his case into a public referendum not only on the music industry’s efforts to enforce copyright through these direct-infringer suits, but also on the copyright rules that make the industry litigation possible. In this program, we engage Nesson’s key arguments, focusing especially on Nesson’s claim that copyright law’s statutory damages regime runs afoul of constitutional protections against excessive and/or arbitrary civil damages awards. Guests include Professor Nesson himself; Steven Marks, General Counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America; and three of the leading academic experts on punitive damages: New York University Professor Catherine Sharkey, Florida State Professor Dan Markel, and George Washington University Professor Thomas Colby. UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman moderates.
The Honorable Paul Michel currently serves as Chief Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit and, in that role, has overseen a period of enormous growth and change in the patent system. In this audio presentation, Chief Judge Michel joins moderator Doug Lichtman to talk patent reform, thinking not only about what has been accomplished in recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, but also about what work is left ahead for Congress, the Supreme Court, the Patent Office, and the Federal Circuit itself.
Social networking sites, search engines, and the like all gather an enormous amount of information about individual users. The information has value to these businesses in terms of tailoring advertisements and calibrating product offerings and pricing. But what constraints does the law place upon the acquisition, storage, and use of this data? In this program, we will look at privacy law from a distinctly modern perspective, using recent controversies to highlight not only relevant rules but also strategic tradeoffs inherent in collecting personal information from a user community. Guests include GW Law Professor Dan Solove and Santa Clara Law’s Eric Goldman. UCLA law professor Doug Lichtman hosts.
In its recent decision in In Re Bilski, the Federal Circuit articulates a new test for whether a given innovative process falls within the subject matter of federal patent law. In this audio presentation, Professors Rob Merges and John Duffy join moderator Doug Lichtman to think through what the new test actually means; where it came from; and whether it will actually change the kinds of patents that issue.
Fred von Lohmann is literally one of those special voices who needs no introduction. Agree with him, think his views extreme, or fall anywhere in between, one can still not help but respect and be thoughtfully engaged by his comprehensive and careful views on the proper scope and structure of federal copyright law. In this first audio presentation, join us as Fred and moderator Doug Lichtman engage a group of UCLA law students in a wide-ranging conversation about the Cablevision case, third-party liability, and copyright law’s struggle to simultaneously encourage authorship while leaving adequate flexibility for disruptive technologies.