Berkeley law professor Pamela Samuelson’s recent article examines proposed reforms of the DMCA’s safe harbor rules that limit the liability of ISPs hosting user-generated content. Professor Samuelson urges Congress to “take a balanced approach” and “consider the interests of a wide range of stakeholders”.
A selection of articles recently written by TAP scholars explore AI and business competition, autonomous vehicles, how privacy regulation could support innovation, privacy interfaces focused on peoples’ needs, and licensing standard-essential patents for 5G telecommunications.
In “A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation,” Professors Nicholas Bloom, John Van Reenen, and Heidi Williams present a number of the main innovation policy levers to energize technological innovation.
Stanford economist Heidi Williams investigates how US patent allowances affect firm performance and worker pay. Beyond simply raising average earnings, she finds that patents exacerbate within-firm inequality.
Josh Lerner, Harvard Business School, presents his recent research on intellectual property rights and innovation in China.
A new paper by Santa Clara University’s Eric Goldman and Northeastern Law’s Jessica Silbey provides a roadmap to distinguish the legitimate and illegitimate bases for protecting privacy via copyright.
In honor of World IP Day, TAP highlights a few of the articles and scholars that examine intellectual property technology-policy issues.
In “Patent Pool Outsiders,” Maurer School of Law professor Michael Mattioli examines the impact of ‘outsiders’ on patent pools and finds that partial cooperation on license agreements may be better than complete cooperation.
MIT economics professor Heidi Williams reviews recent US Supreme Court rulings on patent eligibility and presents her rigorous empirical research on the question: do patents impede or encourage innovation?
Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman examines a paradox presented in the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): while the DTSA provides an important development in intellectual property law, the statute says it “shall not be construed to be a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other Act of Congress.”