<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Freedom for IP &#187; Blogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://freedomforip.org/category/blogs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://freedomforip.org</link>
	<description>Dreaming of Intellectual Prosperity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 02:49:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>FFIP Recommends: Patently-O</title>
		<link>http://freedomforip.org/2008/05/29/ffip-recommends-patently-o/</link>
		<comments>http://freedomforip.org/2008/05/29/ffip-recommends-patently-o/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 03:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedomforip.org/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[FFIP Blog Review: Author: Dennis D. Crouch, law professor and patent attorney, University of Missouri Blog Name: The Patent Blog, Patently-O Post Frequency: Daily Content: All things patent oriented. Anticipation, CAFC, Claims, CLE, Contributory Infringement, Damages, Design Patent, Doctrine of Equivalents, Enablement, Inducement, Injunctions, Means Plus Function, Motivation to Combine, Obviousness, On Sale, Legislation, Patent [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FFIP Blog Review:<br />
<a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-306" style="float: left;" title="Patently-O" src="http://freedomforip.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/picture-1-300x76.png" alt="" width="300" height="76" /></a><br />
Author: <a href="http://law.missouri.edu/faculty/crouchd.html" target="_blank">Dennis D. Crouch</a>, law professor and patent attorney, University of Missouri<br />
Blog Name: <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/" target="_blank">The Patent Blog, Patently-O</a><br />
Post Frequency: Daily<br />
Content: All things patent oriented. Anticipation, CAFC, Claims, CLE, Contributory Infringement, Damages, Design Patent, Doctrine of Equivalents, Enablement, Inducement, Injunctions, Means Plus Function, Motivation to Combine, Obviousness, On Sale, Legislation, Patent Prosecution, PHOSITA, Priority Rights, Public Use, Software, Statutory Construction, USPTO, Vitiation</p>
<p>Sample post after the jump:<br />
<span id="more-305"></span><br />
<strong>First Sale Doctrine: Copyright &amp; Patent</strong>, From March 27th<br />
In some ways, the Supreme Court case of <em>Quanta v. LGE</em> is a symbol of the ongoing struggle between property law and contract law.  With concepts like the first sale doctrine (and the rule against perpetuities), property law has typically operated to limit dead hand and downstream control over property rights.  These limiting doctrines are largely ignored in a freedom of contract regime.</p>
<p><em>Vernor v. Autodesk</em> (W.D. WA 2008)</p>
<p>A federal copyright case last week landed on the side of property &amp; the first sale doctrine.  The court denied summary judgment to Autodesk — finding instead that Vernor may well have a legitimate right to re-sell his copies of AutoCAD. Autodesk argues that he only holds a contractual license to use the software (via shrink-wrap license) and does not actually hold full property interests in the programs.</p>
<p>“[T]he transfer of AutoCAD packages from Autodesk to CTA was a sale with contractual restrictions on use and transfer of the software. Mr. Vernor may thus invoke the first sale doctrine, and his resale of the AutoCAD packages is not a copyright violation.”</p>
<p>In copyright law, the first sale doctrine is codified in statute — allowing the owner of a particular copy to resell that copy even if the owner had contractually agreed not to do so.</p>
<p>“[T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title … is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” 17 USC 109.</p>
<p>In patent law, the first sale doctrine – also known as patent exhaustion – has no statutory support. Rather, like the doctrine of equivalents, patent exhaustion is grounded in common law principles.  The Quanta case is fairly technical and could result in a narrow low-impact opinion. However, it is also quite possible that the Supreme Court will re-solidify the property concepts.  Expect a decision within the next few weeks.</p>
<p>Positive: Great posts, good comments, very qualified author, up to date post often include court documents</p>
<p>Negative: less accessible for non attorneys, very little coverage of the social justice aspects of patents, light international coverage<br />
Other notes: advertising supported</p>
<p>Rating 4.5 out of 5: I, Brian Rowe, strongly recommend this blog for anyone with a strong interest in US patents.</p>
<p>Past Blog recommendations:</p>
<ul>
<li><a title="Tech and IP law in the northwest, Michael Rice" href="http://www.coderights.com/">Coderights</a></li>
<li><a title="international student organization working to promote free culture ideals" href="http://freeculture.org/">Free Culture</a></li>
<li><a title="Seattle based trademark blog by Michael Atkins" href="http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/">Seattle Trademark Lawyer</a></li>
<li><a title="Washington state patent law blog" href="http://www.wapatents.com/">WApatents</a></li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://freedomforip.org/2008/05/29/ffip-recommends-patently-o/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blog Recommendations</title>
		<link>http://freedomforip.org/2007/12/07/blog-recommendations/</link>
		<comments>http://freedomforip.org/2007/12/07/blog-recommendations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Rowe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Troll Tracker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyfight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wapatents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freedomforip.org/blog/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently starting using Google&#8217;s &#8220;blog recommender&#8221; tool in Google Reader and have found three very interesting blogs worth checking out: Patent Troll Tracker: This blog rocks! Troll Tracker is an anonymous blogger, probably a patent lawyer, that reports over abusive patent claims and litigation. The posts are well cited with links to court docs. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently starting using Google&#8217;s &#8220;blog recommender&#8221; tool in Google Reader and have found three  very interesting blogs worth checking out:<br />
<a href="http://www.freedomforip.org/uploaded_images/trolltracker-753146.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 97px; height: 124px;" src="http://www.freedomforip.org/uploaded_images/trolltracker-753143.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />
<a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/">Patent Troll Tracker</a>:  This blog rocks!  Troll Tracker is an anonymous blogger, probably a patent lawyer, that reports over abusive patent claims and litigation.  The posts are well cited with links to court docs. There is a current bounty out on the Tracker&#8217;s identity.  A powerfully patent attorney , and <a href="http://www.niroscavone.com/document.php?Id=67">alleged Troll, Ray Niro</a> is offering $5k to anyone who unearths his identity. I strongly recommend this blog,<br />
<a href="http://www.wapatents.com/"><br />
</a><a href="http://www.freedomforip.org/uploaded_images/wapatents-729414.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://www.freedomforip.org/uploaded_images/wapatents-729411.JPG" border="0" alt="" /></a><a href="http://www.wapatents.com/">Wa Patents</a>: This is a local Seattle blog run by <a href="http://www.darbylaw.com/bio/sample_bio.asp?id=2591">Mark Walters</a> a patent attorney at <a href="http://www.darbylaw.com/home.asp?flsh=no">Darby &amp; Darby</a>.  The content is interesting, recent and especially relevant to patent geeks in Washington.  I respect the authors knowledge and depth of treatment on local and national patent issues even though I do not agree with his economic and political arguments.  I recommend this blog especially to people with an interest in local patent issues.</p>
<p><a href="http://copyfight.corante.com/">Copyfight</a>: This is a team blog with some impressive names in copyright law including Donna Wentworth of the <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/">Berkman Center</a> and Wendy Seltzer of of <a href="http://www.slaw.neu.edu/">Northeastern University School of Law</a>.  The articles are a bit on the academic side, but very well researched and cited. The only downside is that the authors seem to post in cycles and I can not tell which authors are still active or have gone elsewhere to blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://freedomforip.org/2007/12/07/blog-recommendations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
