On Judge Sweet’s DNA Ruling: Good for Patients, Bad for Biz?

31 03 2010

Folks are positively buzzing, it seems, about this ruling made on Tuesday by Manhattan federal judge Robert Sweet, in which he struck down several patents on human genes.

An article in the WSJ on Wednesday says that, according to medical experts, the ruling could ultimately be a boon for genetic research and a benefit for public health. Click here for Tuesday’s WSJ story on the ruling; here for Judge Sweet’s opinion; here for the Nathan Koppel’s overview of the issues, pubbed last December in the WSJ.

According to the Journal, when companies hold exclusive licenses for human genes, the effects can restrict competition to develop gene-based applications, inflate prices and slow innovation, some geneticists say.

more


The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/31/on-judge-sweets-dna-ruling-good-for-patients-bad-for-biz/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



SCO loses again: jury says Novell owns UNIX SVRX copyrights

30 03 2010

The SCO Group was dealt a serious, potentially fatal blow today in its courtroom battle against Linux. The jury in the trial between SCO and Novell has issued a verdict affirming that Novell is the rightful owner of the UNIX SVRX copyrights. This verdict will make it difficult for SCO to continue pursuing its baseless assault on the open source operating system.

The SCO saga began in 2003 when the company claimed that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. SCO filed a lawsuit against IBM, alleging that Big Blue misappropriated UNIX code and included it in the Linux kernel. Although SCO repeatedly claimed to have compelling evidence to support its accusations, the company has yet to provide proof in the seven years since. Internal SCO memos that came to light during the discovery process of SCO’s conflict with IBM revealed that SCO’s own internal code audits did not identify any evidence infringement.

Read the rest of this article...


The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/sco-loses-again-jury-says-novell-owns-unix-svrx-copyrights.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge rules that genetic patents are invalid in ACLU lawsuit against Myriad

29 03 2010

Last year, several doctors’ groups, together with the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation, filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate patents on two genes related to breast cancer, owned by Utah-based Myriad Genetics. The lawsuit is a broad attack on all genetic patents and argued they are, in fact, not only illegal under the patent laws, but unconstitutional.

This afternoon, the doctors’ groups won. New York district court judge Robert Sweet ruled on summary judgment motions from both sides. In a 156-page opinion [PDF], he found for the plaintiffs, and has invalidated Myriad’s patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, saying they are patents on the natural world and don’t conform to section 101 of the patent laws, which govern what is eligible for patenting. Myriad’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

The full name of the case is Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office et al.

Read Judge Sweet’s opinion [PDF].

more


The content in this post was found at http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/03/aclu-v-myriad-judge-rules-gene-patents-are-invalid.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThePriorArt+%28The+Prior+Art%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Craigslist Wins $1.3M Default Judgment Against Autoposting Facilitator — craigslist v. Naturemarket

25 03 2010

[Post by Venkat]

craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., Case No. C 08-05065 PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2010) [scribd] (report and recommendation adopted on February 5, 2010)

Craigslist obtained a 1.3 million dollar default judgment against defendants Naturemarket, Inc. and Igor Gasov.

Naturemarket (doing business as powerpostings.com [typical bad choice of name]) sold software which allowed its customers to automatically post listings to craigslist. As advertised by defendants, the software made “the difficult craigslist posting process child’s play and [helped users] manage and multi-post . . . ads.” Defendants also advertised “posting agent” services where defendants would post ads on behalf of customers. Finally, defendants sold software that scraped email addresses from the craigslist site.

Craigslist sued alleging claims under (1) copyright; (2) DMCA; (3) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (4) trademark; (5) breach of contract/terms of use. Defendants failed to contest the suit. The court granted default judgment against defendants:

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/craiglist_wins.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Did Hulu steal from Hula? Lawsuit aims to find out

24 03 2010

When Hulu was first launched in 2007, many of us wondered aloud, “Where the heck did they think up the name ‘Hulu’?” The answer may be hidden in a new lawsuit brought by Canadian media company Hulavision, which alleges that Hulu and parent company NBC Universal not only stole its trade secrets before launching Hulu, but stole its trademark as well.

Hulavision, created by Errol Hula, allegedly developed technology that is strikingly similar to that used by Hulu as a way to bring TV shows to Internet surfers, according to the complaint seen by the Hollywood Reporter. Hula says he met with NBC Universal’s Raymond Vergel de Dios in Las Vegas—years before Hulu was developed. NBC must have been interested, because Vergel de Dios signed a nondisclosure agreement with Hula in 2006, at which time Hula revealed the company’s business model and other trade secrets.

more


The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/did-hulu-steal-from-hula-suit-aims-to-find-out.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.