Search

The article from the Berkeley Technology Law Journal discusses the career and impact of Pamela Samuelson, a prominent scholar in intellectual property law at the University of California, Berkeley. The article highlights a symposium celebrating Samuelson's contributions to promoting progress in science and the arts through her scholarship, advocacy, teaching, and leadership. Various panels and essays in the issue explore Samuelson's work on copyright law, innovation, and collaborations with experts from diverse disciplines. The article emphasizes Samuelson's influence on inspiring technologists, fostering multidisciplinary collaborations, and promoting clear and impactful writing in the field of law and policy. [Extracted from the article]

The article "COMMITTED TO COPYRIGHT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE" by Michael W. Carroll in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal explores Pam Samuelson's dedication to understanding and advancing copyright law's role in benefiting the public. It discusses her contributions to copyright scholarship, institutions, and policy advocacy, focusing on areas such as copyrightable subject matter, scope of protection, and remedies for infringement. Pam's principled stance against certain policies in the 1990s is highlighted as an example of her commitment to upholding the constitutional vision for copyright law. The text praises her civil engagement in policy debates, mentorship of younger scholars, and leadership in the intellectual property community, looking forward to her continued involvement in addressing new challenges like artificial intelligence. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the Technology Law and Policy Clinical Movement led by Pam Samuelson at Berkeley Law, focusing on legal battles and policy debates in technology law. It discusses key cases like Eldred v. Ashcroft and Oracle v. Google, as well as issues such as copyright, patents, and AI. Emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives, the text underscores the need for TLP clinics to address evolving challenges in technology law, including intellectual property, privacy, and social justice concerns. Pam's influence in shaping TLP clinics globally and providing valuable learning experiences for students is highlighted. [Extracted from the article]

This Paper expounds on the legal and philosophical implications underlying the development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). As it stands, the current U.S. legal regime is ill-equipped to redress emergent privacy harms in these BCI developments. By privileging identifiability through discrete data points and limited interpersonal contexts, these laws misapprehend how companies facilitate classification and identification through the construction of behavioral profiles constituted through psychographics and the combination of various data points with other contextual data. Privacy law’s failure to appreciate the social construction of doing privacy is by no means a sheer coincidence. Rather, it traces a genealogy to its normative underpinnings, wherein tech companies have “habituated us into thinking that managing our privacy is an individual responsibility.” In turn, our legal infrastructure entrenches a longstanding fallacy where privacy means control. This Note considers these issues in four parts. Part II provides an overview of how BCIs developed through medical and scientific research, generating the preconditions for illicit use in employment, military, education, and consumer product contexts. Part III draws out the implications for neural data extraction and manipulation, focusing attention towards neuroethical and privacy considerations for emerging disembodied agency. Part IV surveys deficiencies in existing privacy legal infrastructures for protecting neural data and, specifically, interrogates the underlying tenets to doing privacy law. Part V proposes a regulatory framework for protecting neural data that incorporates ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure that privacy law keeps pace with BCI’s rapid innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article tells the story of the fight for the right to repair in Australia. It is intended to complement comparative research elsewhere, looking at the right to repair in the United States and Canada; the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the European Union; and other jurisdictions, such as South Africa. Part II of this paper considers the politics of the right to repair in Australia. It explains how Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury has sparked a larger law reform inquiry by the Productivity Commission into the right to repair. It highlights how Australia is particularly promising in terms of law reform--due to an unusual consensus amongst the major political parties across the usual divides. Part III focuses on the debate over intellectual property and the right to repair in Australia, and the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It argues that there needs to be more than just copyright law reform; there should be matching reforms in designs law, trade mark law, patent law, trade secrets, and data protection. Part IV considers the recommendations of the Productivity Commission regarding consumer law and competition policy. It highlights the need for further law enforcement action to protect the right to repair. Part V explores the discussion about the right to repair in the context of sustainable development--looking at submissions on e-waste, the circular economy, and sustainable development. It contends that there should be greater law reform in these areas (going well beyond the limited recommendations of the Productivity Commission in this area). Part VI concludes by noting that the Productivity Commission has asked for action in particular markets in respect of automobiles, agricultural machinery, and tablets. The Article calls for the Australian Parliament to go further and recognise a more broadly based right to repair. Such a recognition will require a holistic approach, involving reforms to intellectual property laws, consumer rights and competition policy, and regulation of the environment and sustainable development. It maintains that it is necessary that the jurisdiction of Australia keep pace on the right to repair with its comparative partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his seminal paper from 1997, Professor Joel R. Reidenberg articulated a novel governance framework known as "Lex Informatica." Under the principles of Lex Informatica, norms are no longer shaped by leaders, legislators, or judges but rather by technological capabilities and design choices that grant users the flexibility to shape their own online experience based on their preferences. A quarter century later, a "second generation" of online governance systems has emerged, making use of artificial intelligence: "Lex AI." The manner by which Lex AI stirs our behavior or reality (for example by filtering online content it deems inappropriate, advising a judge to refuse defendant's request for bail, or recommending a certain book and not others) is based on the aggregation of big data and on predictions of the optimal choice for each individual subject to Lex AI. Given its personalized nature, Lex AI may be perceived as a form of private ordering, one that focuses on the individual rather than on the collective, and--at least when its supports voluntary decision-making--grants individuals the ability to execute their own preferences and choices. Yet, as we explore in this Article, Lex AI bypasses autonomous choice as it is often based on personalization that is conducted for the user and not by the user. As such, it does not neatly fit the definition of private ordering--the process of setting up of social norms by parties involved in the regulated activity. As a form of public ordering, on the other hand, Lex AI may be viewed as a superior form of collective governance because it bases its decision on the efficient collection and analysis of granular information regarding actual preferences and behavior. As such, it could possibly address one of the major challenges associated with centralized governance: information failure due to limited and outdated data concerning individuals' actions and appetites. As this Article shows, however, path dependency, coupled with the reduced opportunity to signal users' true preferences or to take part in the deliberation of the applicable norms, may render Lex AI a less efficient and less legitimate form of governance than public ordering. We therefore argue that Lex AI is a sui generis type of governance--one which deserves scrutiny by regulators and policymakers. Naturally, the characteristics of Lex AI also offer significant governance advantages. Shaping Lex AI to enhance social welfare, however, may require a fresh way of thinking about these challenges and the public interventions that might address them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much evidence from recent antitrust cases casts doubt on the ability of conventional remedies to restore competition in digital markets. This paper considers three untested remedies for antitrust enforcement in digital markets: mandatory sharing of algorithmic learning (rather than the data itself); subsidization of competitors; and temporary shutdowns. All three remedies are radical from several perspectives. First, they go beyond halting specific anticompetitive conduct by actively seeking to restore structural conditions favoring competition. Second, they entail government interference with freedom of enterprise and property rights to a substantially higher degree than the market-driven process which normally governs antitrust remedy design. Third, all three remedies create complex tradeoffs, in that they could lead either to competitive benefits (e.g., the entry of new firms) or to harms (e.g., consumer losses in cases of platform shutdowns or anticompetitive coordination in cases of algorithmic sharing). All three thus require careful balancing before implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of autonomous vehicles is often presented as a linear trajectory from total human control to total autonomous control, with only technical and regulatory hurdles in the way. But below the smooth surface of innovation-speak lies a battle over competing autonomous vehicle futures with ramifications well beyond driving. Car companies, technology companies, and others are pursuing alternative autonomous vehicle visions, and each involves an entire reorganization of society, politics, and values. Instead of subscribing to the story of inevitable linear development, this paper explores three archetypes of autonomous vehicles--advanced driver-assist systems, fully driverless cars, and connected cars--and the futures they foretell as the ideal endpoints for different classes of actors. We introduce and use the Handoff Model--a conceptual model for analyzing the political and ethical contours of performing a function with different configurations of human and technical actors--in order to expose the political and social reconfigurations intrinsic to those different futures. Using the Handoff Model, we analyze how each archetype both redistributes the task of "driving" across different human and technical actors and imposes political and ethical propositions both on human "users" and society at large. The Handoff Model exposes the baggage each transport model carries and serves as a guide in identifying the desirable and necessary technical, legal, and social dynamics of whichever future we choose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost every industry today is confronting the potential role that artificial intelligence and machine learning can play in its future. While there are many, many studies on the role of AI in marketing to the consumer, there is less discussion of the role of AI in creating and selecting a trademark that is both distinctive, recognizable, and meaningful to the average consumer. As we argue, given that the role of AI is rapidly increasing in trademark search and similarity areas, lawyers and scholars should be apprised of some of the dramatic implications that AI's role can produce. We begin, mainly, by proposing that AI should be of interest to anyone studying trademarks and the role that they play in economic decision-making. By running a series of empirical experiments regarding search, we show how comparative work can help us to assess the efficacy of various trademark search engines, many of which draw on a variety of machine learning methods. Traditional approaches to trademarks, spearheaded by economic approaches, have focused almost exclusively on consumer-based, demand-side considerations regarding search. Yet, as we show in this paper, these approaches are incomplete because they fail to take into account the substantial costs that are also faced by not just consumers, but trademark applicants as well. In the end, as we show, machine learning techniques will have a transformative effect on the application and interpretation of foundational trademark doctrines, producing significant implications for the trademark ecosystem. In an age where AI will increasingly govern the process of trademark selection, we argue that the classic division between consumers and trademark owners is perhaps deserving of an updated, supply-side framework. As we argue, a new framework is needed--one that reflects that putative trademark owners, too, are also consumers in the trademark selection ecosystem, and that this insight has transformative potential for encouraging both innovation and efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Privacy policies are verbose, difficult to understand, take too long to read, and may be the least-read items on most websites even as users express growing concerns about information collection practices. For all their faults, though, privacy policies remain the single most important source of information for users to attempt to learn how companies collect, use, and share data. Likewise, these policies form the basis for the selfregulatory notice and choice framework that is designed and promoted as a replacement for regulation. The underlying value and legitimacy of notice and choice depends, however, on the ability of users to understand privacy policies. This paper investigates the differences in interpretation among expert, knowledgeable, and typical users and explores whether these groups can understand the practices described in privacy policies at a level sufficient to support rational decision-making. This paper seeks to fill an important gap in the understanding of privacy policies through primary research on user interpretation and to inform the development of technologies combining natural language processing, machine learning, and crowdsourcing for policy interpretation and summarization. For this research, we recruited a group of law and public policy graduate students at Fordham University, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Pittsburgh ("knowledgeable users") and presented these law and policy researchers with a set of privacy policies from companies in the e-commerce and news and entertainment industries. We asked them nine basic questions about the policies' statements regarding data collection, data use, and retention. We then presented the same set of policies to a group of privacy experts and to a group of crowd workers representing typical Internet users. The findings show areas of common understanding across all groups for certain data collection and deletion practices, but also demonstrate very important discrepancies in the interpretation of privacy policy language, particularly with respect to data sharing. The discordant interpretations arose both within groups and between the experts and the two other groups. The presence of these significant discrepancies has critical implications. First, the common understandings of some attributes of described data practices mean that semiautomated extraction of meaning from website privacy policies may be able to assist typical users and improve the effectiveness of notice by conveying the true meaning of these policies. However, the disagreements among experts and disagreement between experts and the other groups reflect that ambiguous wording in typical privacy policies undermines the ability of privacy policies to effectively convey notice of data practices to the general public. The results of this research will, consequently, have significant policy implications for the construction of the notice and choice framework and for the U.S. reliance on this approach. The gap in interpretation indicates that privacy policies may be misleading the general public and that those policies could be considered legally unfair and deceptive. And, where websites are not effectively conveying privacy policies to consumers in a way that a "reasonable person" could, in fact, understand the policies, "notice and choice" fails as a framework. Such a failure has broad international implications since websites extend their reach beyond the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses several papers presented at an antitrust panel, Evolving Antitrust Treatment of Dominant Firms, at the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 2005 Annual Meeting. "Between logic and experience: Error costs and United States v. Microsoft Corp.," by David McGowan; "Exclusionary conduct under the antitrust laws: Balancing, sacrifice, and refusals to deal," by Douglas Melamed; "Section 2, consumer welfare effects, and the flawed profit-sacrifice standard," by Steven Salop.

The article "BACK TO THE FUTURE: NAVIGATING THE COPYRIGHT/CONTRACT INTERFACE IN THE GENERATIVE AI ERA" by Niva Elkin-Koren explores the challenges presented by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in creative industries. It delves into the complexities of copyright and contractual issues in the context of GenAI, addressing concerns such as authorship, fair use, and conflicts between copyright law and contractual restrictions. The article also discusses the implications of enforcing contractual provisions that may clash with copyright policy, emphasizing the importance of balancing the interests of rights holders and the public domain. Additionally, it highlights the debate surrounding the scraping of data for AI training, which has led to class action lawsuits and raised questions about fair use and innovation in the GenAI ecosystem. [Extracted from the article]

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusses topics within the issue incluidng LEX AI, study of content moderation, and the obituary of Joel Reidenberg.

The article discusses the novel concerns posed by exposure data breaches, and proposes adherence to ex ante protocols that may prevent reputational harm. It mentions that the state legislatures and the Federal Trade Commission mandate heightened security standards for entities that store personal information. It also mentions that public disclosure of private information of privacy law remedy.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC wherein court overruled the strong presumption with the overturn of Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc. which first established the strong presumption. It mentions that the impact of the decision of propagating to the district courts and the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB).

The article presents the discussion on cogent analysis focusing adequately on the harm to the public from such fraud and restricting the scope of the fraud to functionality. Topics include serving as a proto-federal trademark registration system before Congress establishing trademark protection in the mid to late 19th century; and thinking politesse obscures responsibility and encouraging stasis against judicial reinterpretation or legislative correction.

The article presents the discussion on designing patent functionality. Topics include utilitarian features being "filtered out" of a patented design excluding from consideration before determining infringement such as copyright law; and goal of businesses relying on robust design patent protection for preventing knockoffs from appropriating the unique and valuable visual designs.

A psychedelic “renaissance” has led to renewed interest in the medical uses of psychedelics, particularly to assist in treatment of substance use disorders. This “renaissance” has included attempts to patent methods of using or synthesizing psychedelics. Long before this “renaissance,” however, indigenous peoples of the Americas used psychedelic plants in their religious rites, including using psychedelic plants to treat substance abuse disorders such as alcoholism. Therefore, indigenous peoples have raised concerns that the recent trend of patenting psychedelics will lead to the patenting of their traditional knowledge and impede their free exercise of religion. A current proposed solution to address such concerns is to create traditional knowledge repositories. Such repositories prevent the patenting of traditional knowledge that qualifies as “prior art” under the patent laws. However, due to the secret nature of religious ceremonies and oral transmission of religious instruction, prior indigenous uses of psychedelics may not qualify as “prior art.” Moreover, market forces may compel indigenous communities to substitute patented varieties of psychedelics for traditional varieties. Accordingly, a “ceremonial use” defense should also be recognized to provide a defense to patent infringement claims for indigenous communities and their members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From COVID-19 vaccines to cancer treatments, biologic medicines are gaining importance in the U.S. health care system. Their high price tags, however, make these medications difficult for many Americans to afford. The Biosimilars Act, enacted in 2010, aimed to reduce costs and increase access to biologic medications by encouraging follow-on competition. The legislative effort followed in the footsteps of its predecessor, the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984. Although the Hatch-Waxman system succeeded in creating a landscape of more affordable and widely used generic drugs, the Biosimilars Act has failed to live up to its promise. Biologic drugs in the United States remain largely unaffordable, and no popular follow-on biologic market, akin to its non-biologic counterpart, has arisen. Investigating the reasons behind these disappointing results requires an analysis of the inner workings of the Biosimilars Act, but such an analysis is difficult to find. In fact, the system set forth by the Biosimilars Act is so complex that scholarship has largely avoided explaining it. To fill this gap in the literature and examine why the results of the Act have been so underwhelming, this Article explains the following: how the Biosimilars Act works in theory, how the parties are gaming the system, and why neither the theory nor the practice functions effectively. Through strategic tactics, biologic and biosimilar companies alike are ignoring and sidestepping the system. The causes can be traced to the structure of the Act, itself. Specifically, by giving too much control to the parties involved, the Act enables them to work against society’s interests and the legislature’s goals. Although these misaligned incentives led to disappointing outcomes, the Article suggests that realigning the system does not require a major overhaul, but rather feasible tweaks. The changes recommended could expand the biologic market, create greater competition with cheaper alternatives, and spur affordable pricing for lifesaving biologic drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trade secret law places more scrutiny on a party’s intent—what it was thinking, what it considered, or what it should have considered—than other categories of intellectual property law. At inflection points across a range of possible disputes, the law inquires into the mindset of one party or the other. Embedded in the federal and state statutes is a legislative intent that absent wrongful intent—or at least constructive knowledge—there can be no misappropriation. This focus on a party’s state of mind comes as no surprise. Because trade secret rights are not registered with any government agency, there is no formal means by which they can be identified in advance. One encounters a trade secret in the wild, so to speak, and one may not always recognize it as such. There are no monopolies in trade secrets, and thus one may receive the same information from more than one source, rendering recognition of trade secret rights more difficult. For sound reasons, then, trade secret misappropriation is not a strict liability wrong. Despite this statutory mandate, there has been little discussion of intentionality when it comes to questions of secondary liability. By secondary liability, we mean cases where a plaintiff seeks liability against one defendant for the act of another. This Article centers on such questions, because that is where the requirement that trade secret misappropriation be intentional most needs attention. There are three areas in particular where the law should better recognize intent-based defenses to secondary liability. This Article offers three propositions. First, we will explore important language in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act which blocks liability in some instances where a defendant has received a trade secret from a third party by “accident or mistake.” This clause presents a statutory safe harbor, in certain instances, for using a trade secret without intent. Courts should rescue this clause from seeming oblivion and apply it where one defendant has innocently received a trade secret from a third party and used it without notice. Second, we will explore vicarious liability in trade secret law, where an employer-defendant is held to account for the actions of an employee within the scope of his or her employment even though company management was unaware of, and may well oppose, such conduct. Courts have adopted vicarious liability under the trade secret statutes. But they have largely overlooked common law exceptions that could apply in many cases, especially where a new employer should not be accountable for a new hire’s off-premises activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study all of the nearly 4.5 million patents, filed on or after May 29, 2000, that were issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office since 2005. We find that most patents (63.6%) get at least some “patent term adjustment” (PTA)—an additional patent term to compensate for delays in patent prosecution. The patents that get PTA get more than a year on average (411 days, a median of 290 days), and more than 25% of all patents have more than a year of extra term. Some get as much as ten years of extra term. Despite its imperfections, the PTA system works pretty well at achieving the goal of compensating patentees for patent prosecution delay. But we would be better off with a world in which delay wasn’t nearly as common as it is, because adding a year at the end of a patent’s life is not the same as having an extra year at the beginning. And the PTA system ends up disproportionately being used by patent trolls in litigation, a result that seems socially unproductive. We offer some suggestions for how to reduce delay and describe the more efficient PTA that could potentially result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acknowledging the value of standard-setting, the Clinton administration originally made "industry self-regulation" the guiding principle for standardizing the Internet. The succeeding administration continues to use this approach. Nonetheless, historical analysis of the last two decades shows that industry self-regulation has not always been a coherent policy. Rather, it has become a rhetorical device used to legitimize the government's agendas, particularly the mandated design of cyberspace's architecture and infrastructure. To date, there are still too many inconsistencies in the government's formal standardization policies. For example, the government's policy of centralizing early infrastructure standards to mandate cyberspace's architecture is in tension with its actions aimed at privatizing the Internet's funding and governance. These contrasting policies demonstrate that "industry self-regulation" of cyberspace has actually included a large measure of government intervention. This paper is a historical and conceptual assessment of the government's standardization policies using a comparative institutional theory approach. After assessing standardization policies, this study considers the unique, multi-layered architecture of cyberspace to identify which institutional body should standardize the Internet. To do so, this study identifies a distinctive production process for cyber standards that distinguishes between the standardization of early infrastructure and the standardization of complementary applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online terms-of-use (TOUs) are the most widely used form contracts in human history. But TOUs are as poorly understood as they are ubiquitous. Their proliferation has fueled a yawning gap between contract law and consumer reality. The notion that users read and understand online TOUs, disproven in academic research, is the subject of pop culture mockery. Yet contract law assumes something very different. Because classic legal doctrines apply to online contracts, consumers routinely find themselves legally bound to contracts they have not--and often could not--read. In this Article, we evaluate the law and linguistics of a critical area of consumer contracting: smartphone-based social platforms. Our interdisciplinary study examines an original dataset of 195 contracts (TOUs, privacy policies, and community guidelines) for seventy-five apps. Our analysis highlights a decoupling of contract doctrine and consumer reality in the smartphone age of online contracting. Our results show that this divergence is fueled by extraordinary volume, complexity, and asymmetries in platform-to-consumer contracts. In addition, our results offer evidence that the decoupling has grown in recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Special interest groups share a dream: enacting legislation customized for, and hopefully drafted by, their industry. Customized rules created via legislative capture, though, are the worst-case scenario from a public choice perspective: they enable narrow interests to capture rents without generating sufficient societal benefits. American intellectual property (IP) law offers useful case studies in legislative capture: special interests have created their own rules three times in the past forty years with the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, the Audio Home Recording Act, and the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. Paradoxically, though, these customized IP systems have consistently disappointed their drafters: all three of these systems lie in desuetude. This result challenges the conventional wisdom about regulatory capture by special interests, suggesting there is less to fear from legislative capture than most legal scholars believe in intellectual property and beyond. The puzzle is why, when given free rein to design the rules that govern them, interest groups have done such a poor job in seizing that advantage. This Article brings together two scholarly debates. The first is within intellectual property: should IP doctrines be tailored by industry, or comprise rules of general application? The second is within public choice: how risky is regulatory capture by special interests? The Article identifies two key reasons for the ineffectiveness of customized regimes. First, industry groups are fragile, fractal-like coalitions of disparate interests; the fault lines between creators and copyists are often points of fracture. Second, interest groups embed current business models and technologies into these systems, making regulation vulnerable to disruptive innovation. It explores how these findings affect proposals for customized regimes for artificial intelligence, weather data, traditional knowledge, privacy, and fashion, and concludes that customized regimes are less effective and threatening than previously thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the invention and development of next-generation sequencing (NGS), focusing on the Illumina sequencing platform. It explores the technical background of NGS, including foundational technologies like Sanger sequencing, and modern NGS technologies like Illumina's, which revolutionized genomics. It also delves into the innovation drivers behind Illumina's success, including scientific curiosity, altruism, public funding, patent protection, and commercialization potential.

The article delves into the fascinating field of CAR-T cell therapy, which harnesses the power of the immune system to combat cancer. It begins with an exploration of the background science behind cancer immunotherapy, detailing the role of the immune system in cancer surveillance and the development of CAR-T cell therapy as a living therapeutic. It highlights the key milestones and players involved in bringing this innovative treatment from the laboratory to clinical practice.

The article provides an in-depth exploration of the journey of ketamine from an anesthetic to a groundbreaking treatment for depression. It traces the history of depression therapies in the U.S., from traditional approaches to modern pharmacological interventions like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). It discusses the challenges related to intellectual property, regulatory approval, and insurance coverage that have impacted the wider adoption of ketamine for depression treatment.

The article explores the journey of innovation surrounding Truvada, a groundbreaking medication for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. It delves into the technical aspects of HIV, antiretroviral technology, and the development of Truvada, highlighting key milestones, innovators, and the collaborative ecosystem that facilitated its creation.

For years, social media companies have sparred with lawmakers over how much independent access to platform data they should provide researchers. Sharing data with researchers allows the public to better understand the risks and harms associated with social media, including areas such as misinformation, child safety, and political polarization. Yet researcher access is controversial. Privacy advocates and companies raise the potential privacy threats of researchers using such data irresponsibly. In addition, social media companies raise concerns over trade secrecy: the data these companies hold and the algorithms powered by that data are secretive sources of competitive advantage. This Article shows that one way to navigate this difficult strait is by drawing on lessons from the successful governance program that has emerged to regulate the sharing of clinical trial data. Like social media data, clinical trial data implicates both individual privacy and trade secrecy concerns. Nonetheless, clinical trial data's governance regime was gradually legislated, regulated, and brokered into existence, managing the interests of industry, academia, and other stakeholders. The result is a functionally successful (albeit imperfect) clinical trial data-sharing ecosystem. Part II sketches the status quo of researchers' access to social media data and provides a novel taxonomy of the problems that arise under this regime. Part III reviews the legal structures governing sharing of clinical trial data and traces the history of scandals, investigations, industry protest, and legislative response that gave rise to the mix of mandated sharing and experimental programs we have today. Part IV applies lessons from clinical trial data sharing to social media data and charts a strategic course forward. Three primary lessons emerge: first, the benefits of research on otherwise secret data are cascading and unpredictable; second, law without institutions to implement the law is insufficient; and, third, data access regimes must be tailored to the different sorts of data they make available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on high allowance rate for U.S. design patent applications. Topics discussed include views on U.S. design patent law and practice; impact of novelty, nonobviousness, and ornamentality of Federal Circuit's case law on the decision of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reject design patent applications; and impact of implication of Federal Circuit's law in the improvement of design patent quality.

The article focuses on analyzing the Supreme Court's ruling in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, where the Court affirmed the FCC's authority to revoke media cross-ownership rules. Topics include the assertion that the Court overlooked normative concerns related to the public interest standard, which mandates broadcasters to operate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," and the argument that the FCC should revive this standard.

The article focuses on exploring the interplay between antitrust law and regulation within the realm of Personal Social Networks. Topics include the argument that the relationship between antitrust law and regulation is mutually beneficial, and to effectively balance this relationship, the Note suggests breaking down Personal Social Networks into manageable sizes before implementing regulations aimed at protecting consumers from issues such as hate speech and privacy invasions.

The article focuses on analyzing the impact of broad definitions in Anti-Moderation Laws and their implications for First Amendment scrutiny, examining the governmental interests and the narrower aim of the laws as related to the concept of the public square. It further delves into the First Amendment analysis, considering the content-based or content-neutral nature of the laws and referencing Packingham v. North Carolina to argue that the extensive reach of the Anti-Moderation Laws.

The article focuses on the antitrust enforcement debates surrounding vertical mergers, which involve combining firms or assets at different stages of the same supply chain. Topics include examining the role of agencies in U.S. merger enforcement, unique considerations for analyzing vertical mergers, tracing the history of vertical merger enforcement, critiquing current merger policy changes, analyzing potential process-based antitrust reform approaches.

The article focuses on advocating for a straightforward legislative remedy to address the risks associated with geofence search warrants by proposing a comprehensive ban on all such searches. Topics include an explanation of geofence search warrants, Google's handling of them, their implications for privacy and speech, and an examination of the potential shortcomings in relying on the Fourth Amendment, and the third-party doctrine.

The article focuses on analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Unicolors v. H&M, specifically addressing the narrow legal question of whether good faith mistakes invalidate copyright registration applications. Topics include the identification of concerns related to "copyright trolling" based on the underlying facts of the case and the proposal of various policy solutions to prevent the abuse of the copyright system by such entities.

The article focuses on analyzing the interaction among copyright law, state sovereign immunity, and the federal Takings Clause, addressing the issue of state actors without consequences after the Jim Olive Photography v. University of Houston decision. Topics include exploring the possibility of lawsuits under Takings Clause to hold state actors accountable for unauthorized use of copyrighted material and a refined version of the Copyright Reform Clarification Act for this purpose.

The article focuses on arguing that copyright law inherently shows preference to specific cultural expression genres, like Indian classical music, due to the likelihood of copyright infringement or the presence of scenes a faire elements. Topics include the proposal to stimulate investment in these music genres by suggesting a reduction in the scope of copyright's derivative and reproductive rights.

The article focuses on exploring a conflict within pharmaceutical industry concerning the dual requirements of presenting a product as similar to approved drugs for U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval while also distinguishing it from prior art for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent protection. Topics include the need for a new system facilitating interaction between the USPTO and FDA during patent prosecution and proposing a post-patent issuance solution.

The article focuses on analyzing the patent-eligible subject matter doctrine post the Federal Circuit's ruling in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and problematic nature of the Mayo/Alice framework in determining patent eligibility. Topics include the framework's overlap with other patentability tests and its failure to consider the inherent abstraction in all inventions, with the proposed solution being a revised notion of patent eligibility.

Copyright of Berkeley Technology Law Journal is the property of University of California School of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The European Union's Digital Services Act ("DSA") establishes a "meta law"--public regulation of the private regulation conducted by internet platforms. The DSA offers an attempt to balance private technological power with democratic oversight. The DSA will likely prove an attractive model for other governments to assert control over massive global internet platforms. What happens when other countries borrow its approach, in an instantiation of the vaunted Brussels Effect? This Article evaluates the DSA using the "Putin Test"--asking what if an authoritarian leader were given the powers granted by the DSA? The Article argues that authoritarians might well exploit various mechanisms in the DSA to enlarge their control over the dissemination of information, and, in particular, to target the speech of critics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) offers a new model for regulating online services that allow users to post things. It uses size-based tiers to delineate the different levels of obligation imposed on various services. Despite the tiers of regulation in the DSA, and very much in its copyright-specific companion Article 17, it's evident that the broad contours of the new rules were written with insufficient attention to variation. Instead, regulators assumed that "the internet" largely behaved like YouTube and Facebook. Using three examples of how that model is likely to be bad for a thriving online ecosystem--counting users, providing due process, and implementing copyright-specific rules--this Article concludes that, to improve policymaking, regulators should use test suites of differently situated services to ensure that they are at least considering existing diversity and properly identifying their targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twenty-five years ago, in 1998, the United States Congress developed a blueprint for the global regulation of the internet. Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) recognized that user-generated content will be crucial to most digital services and offered up-front assurances from liability to some providers subject to conditions. What started as a sectorial conditional immunity system in copyright law was immediately scaled up into an all-encompassing horizontal rulebook in the European Union through the ECommerce Directive (ECD) in 2000--recently updated into the Digital Services Act (DSA). The last two decades have largely validated the DMCA's conditional immunity as a feasible baseline approach to the regulation of internet communications that power global exchanges of ideas, goods, and services. However, the conditional immunity model has its limits. It was not designed to offer a complex solution for new challenges. The DSA is the first comprehensive attempt to create a second generation of rules for digital services that rely on user-generated content. Unlike previous sectorial initiatives, its approach is sweepingly horizontal. The DSA requires some level participation from both state and non-state institutions for its system of checks and balances to work, and some of its solutions can be "too European." However, the principles behind the DSA could be useful in other jurisdictions--perhaps even in the United States. The United Kingdom, which is currently developing its own set of post-Brexit rules, continues to build on some of the same principles as the DSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]