Podcast appearances and mentions of adam mossoff

What makes some countries more innovative than others? What role do intellectual property rights play in building national power? Does Elon Musk really give competitors free access to Tesla's patents? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. We discuss… How the patent system has shaped American society since independence, The extent to which patent policy caused the great divergence between the West and China, Whether Elon's misunderstanding of patents will become the dominant attitude of the second Trump administration, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other threats to the U.S. innovation ecosystem, How to reconcile China's IP theft with its robust domestic patent law, What the U.S. can do to facilitate innovation while competing with China in emerging technology. Outro Songs from the American Revolution: Liberty Song (Arthur F. Schrader rendition), and the Tory retort, Come Shake Your Dull Noodles (Arthur F. Schrader rendition) Thanks to the Innovation Alliance for sponsoring this episode. The Innovation Alliance is a coalition of research and development-based technology companies representing innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders who believe in the critical importance of maintaining a strong patent system that supports innovative enterprises of all sizes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What makes some countries more innovative than others? What role do intellectual property rights play in building national power? Does Elon Musk really give competitors free access to Tesla's patents? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. We discuss… How the patent system has shaped American society since independence, The extent to which patent policy caused the great divergence between the West and China, Whether Elon's misunderstanding of patents will become the dominant attitude of the second Trump administration, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other threats to the U.S. innovation ecosystem, How to reconcile China's IP theft with its robust domestic patent law, What the U.S. can do to facilitate innovation while competing with China in emerging technology. Outro Songs from the American Revolution: Liberty Song (Arthur F. Schrader rendition), and the Tory retort, Come Shake Your Dull Noodles (Arthur F. Schrader rendition) Thanks to the Innovation Alliance for sponsoring this episode. The Innovation Alliance is a coalition of research and development-based technology companies representing innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders who believe in the critical importance of maintaining a strong patent system that supports innovative enterprises of all sizes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Show is Sponsored by The Ayn Rand Institute https://www.aynrand.org/starthereEnergy Talking Points, featuring AlexAI, by Alex Epstein https://alexepstein.substack.com/Express VPN https://www.expressvpn.com/yaronJoin this channel to get access to perks: / @yaronbrook Like what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxSupport the Show and become a sponsor: / yaronbrookshow or https://yaronbrookshow.com/membershipOr make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3#israel #insulin #pharmaceutical #ethics #selfishness #egoism #capitalism #philosophy #Morality ​ ​#Objectivism​ #AynRand #politicsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/yaron-brook-show--3276901/support.

Adam Mossoff is a George Mason University/Antonin Scalia Law School Professor. Interpretations of the Bayh-Dole Act and Rx price fixing efforts by the Biden administration

Biopharmaceutical innovators responded heroically to the COVID-19 pandemic. In unprecedented time and with cutting-edge technologies, they created vaccines and other medical treatments that saved millions of lives around the world. For this extraordinary achievement, leftists and libertarians have vilified them, and politicians are actively seeking to confiscate their patents. This talk explains how patents made possible the unprecedented response to the pandemic and why these vital property rights have been wrongly attacked. Recorded live on July 7, 2022 as part of the Objectivist Summer Conference.

Adam Mossoff is Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. He has published extensively on intellectual property rights and innovation policy. His scholarship has been relied on by the U.S. Supreme Court, by other federal courts, and by federal agencies, and he has been invited five times to testify before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on intellectual property legislation. He has been invited to speak at the the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Smithsonian Institution, among other public and private institutions. In addition to his academic articles, his writings on intellectual property policy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Washington Times, Newsweek, and in other media outlets. He is an affiliated scholar and research fellow at many think tanks and policy organizations.Show is Sponsored by Ayn Rand University https://university.aynrand.org/ as well as by https://www.expressvpn.com/yaron & https://www.fountainheadcasts.comJoin this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/@YaronBrook/joinLike what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxSupport the Show and become a sponsor: https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or https://yaronbrookshow.com/membershipOr make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3#intellectualpropertyrights #constitution #individualrights #Integralism ##Morality ​Propertyrights #Economy ​#Objectivism​ #AynRand #politics #AynRandInstitute

Thomas and Angelica interview intellectual property rights expert Adam Mossoff about the importance of property rights and patents for innovation, the state of patents in the US, and what we can do about it.   Follow Adam on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AdamMossoff Innovation Race: https://watch.innovationracemovie.com/

Rapid economic opening and growth since the 1980s led many to expect the People's Republic of China (PRC) to undergo political liberalization and assume a business-friendly environment. This panel will explore contemporary conditions in the Communist Party–ruled state and seek answers to the coming challenges posed by its approach to economics: What are the implications for foreign corporations investing in the PRC? What risks do they face to their intellectual property? How is the Party leveraging technology for geopolitical gain?Recorded live on July 6, 2022 as part of the Objectivist Summer Conference.

Who is really pulling the strings? How a new report exposes the nexus between a university notorious for training the west's top spies simultaneously staffing big tech, the mainstream media, and government agencies. Plus, did the judge in the second round of the Whitmer fed-napping trial put his thumb on the scales of justice? Finally, a Florida father tearfully explains how supposed "gender affirming" care pushed his teen daughter to the brink of suicide in her school's bathroom, where she had been socially transitioned without his knowledge.

Government regulations have grown inexorably over decades and now impact all aspects of our lives. Just in the last year, we've seen regulatory measures ranging from the taken-for-granted Covid-19 lockdowns to the growing calls for antitrust attacks on the tech industry. Why do Americans increasingly look to government to regulate more and more of our activities? What are the underlying causes, and consequences, of the ever-growing regulatory state? Note: Do to technical difficulties, the first few minutes of audio were not recorded. This podcast begins mid conversation.

Chapter contributor Adam Mossoff discusses A Companion to Ayn Rand, part of the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series.

We celebrate great inventors for their creations—the lightbulb, the sewing machine, the computer, the smartphone. Great innovators are often great capitalists, too. They often invent new business models, corporate organizations and other commercial mechanisms for producing, retailing and advertising their new products and services. In this talk, Adam Mossoff discusses the often-overlooked value-creating commercial innovations of great inventors in U.S. history. Recorded live as part of The Objectivist Conference on August 29, 2021.

In this talk, Mossoff addresses the nature of patent rights, emphasizing the Founding Fathers' moral achievement in securing patents and other intellectual property rights in U.S. law. Known for leading the charge on intellectual property rights, Mossoff has testified before the Senate and the House on patent legislation, and speaks and writes extensively on the issue.This talk was recorded as part of OCON 2017 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

As a professional intellectual or an “intellectual professional,” there is a wide variety of possible avenues for advancing Objectivism in your professional work. In this session, a panel of distinguished speakers from a variety of professional backgrounds talks about their work and careers. Adam Mossoff is Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, is Chair of the Forum for Intellectual Property at the Hudson Institute, and is affiliated with several other think tanks and policy organizations. He is a nationally recognized expert on intellectual property policy. His research has been relied on by the Supreme Court, by lower federal courts, and by federal agencies, and he has been invited five times to testify before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on patent legislation. Larry Salzman is the Litigation Director at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm dedicated to advancing the principles of individual rights and limited government through law. He leads PLF's attorneys in developing and litigating cases involving property rights, economic freedom, free speech, equality, and the constitutional separation of powers. He is also a graduate of ARI's Objectivist Academic Center. Dr. Robert Mayhew, a member of ARI's board of directors, teaches philosophy at Seton Hall University. He is the author or editor of seven books in his area of specialization, ancient philosophy (most recently "Aristotle's Lost Homeric Problems"), and author or editor of ten books related to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".

As a professional intellectual or an “intellectual professional,” there is a wide variety of possible avenues for advancing Objectivism in your professional work. In this session, Adam Mossoff talks about his work and career. Adam Mossoff is Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, is Chair of the Forum for Intellectual Property at the Hudson Institute, and is affiliated with several other think tanks and policy organizations. He is a nationally recognized expert on intellectual property policy. His research has been relied on by the Supreme Court, by lower federal courts, and by federal agencies, and he has been invited five times to testify before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on patent legislation.

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Ben Bayer interviews special guest Adam Mossoff, intellectual property expert and professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, about President Biden’s recent support for waiving overseas patent protection for the Covid-19 vaccines developed by companies like Pfizer and Moderna. Among the topics covered: The Biden administration’s proposals to waive Covid vaccine patent protection by international institutions;Why intellectual property has only encouraged the development and distribution of medical technology and how this is the function of intellectual property;The likely consequences of waiving intellectual property rights for Covid vaccines;How intellectual property rights made possible the creation of the Covid vaccines and treatments;Why intellectual property rights are not fundamentally justified by their contribution to the “public good” but by the principle of individual rights;Whether the government acquires rights to intellectual property by investing in the development of innovations;Whether Section 1498 of the U.S. Code allows for government to exercise eminent domain over vaccine patents;Whether intellectual property rights allow pharmaceutical companies to profit from the spread of disease;Changes to the legal system and trade policy that would allow better production and distribution of the vaccines overseas;How a biological product can be considered intellectual property;The role of intellectual property in the development of a malaria vaccine and other mRNA vaccines. Mentioned in the discussion are Ayn Rand’s essay “Patents and Copyrights,” Adam Mossoff’s article “Waiving Vaccine Patents Would Imperil Public Health,” and Ben Bayer’s article “The Unscientific, Un-American Ethics of Vaccine Distribution.” This podcast was recorded on May 12, 2021. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here. Podcast audio:

Links: Adam Mossoff: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/mossoff_adamLike​ what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: http://youtube.com/ybrook​​​​Become a sponsor to get exclusive access and help create more videos like this: http://yaronbrookshow.com/support​​​​Or make a one-time donation: http://paypal.me/yaronbrookshow​​​​.Continue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (http://twitter.com/yaronbrook​​​​) and Facebook (http://facebook.com/ybrook​​​​). Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: http://ari.aynrand.org​​#IntellectualProperty #Biden #Copyright​​ #Objectivism​ #AynRand

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 326. [Update: Transcript appended below] Back on May 24, 2020, I appeared on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff's recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. I was a bit drunk and it shows, and went off on a rant and was not as coherent as usual. The episode was entitled "Under the Influence... of Stephan Kinsella... Against Intellectual Property". We recorded a second episode on May 30, 2020, entitled "A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella...," which was released as KOL289. I just realized I never posted the initial episode, so here it is, warts and all (unfortunately for fans of my drunken rants, I have quit drinking alcohol since I realized it's a destructive poison with no benefits at all, so this won't happen again). Previous episode: KOL289 | Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation… See various links, embeds, notes below. Youtube of the current discussion: Previous Youtube from KOL289. Antony's previous debate with Mossoff: In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, “Patents and the Wealth of Nations,” 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here:  “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”–see in particular note 3 and accompanying text. ❧ Transcript Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence of Stephan Kinsella: Against Intellectual Property (May 21, 2020) [Transcript of "Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence..." (May 21, 2020)] 00:00:03 TOM LAIRD: Welcome to episode 155 of the Scottish Liberty podcast with me, Tom Laird and, of course, the man who can, Antony Sammeroff. 00:00:13 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That's me. 00:00:13 TOM LAIRD: And possibly the man who can, Stephen Kinsella, big hitter from the Mises Institute and patent lawyer extraordinaire, and there he goes. 00:00:25 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Author of Against Intellectual Property, a very influential book in the libertarian movement I have to say. 00:00:33 STEPHAN KINSELLA: The most intellectual book, and get my name right.  Let's say Stephan.  Let's say it.  Okay, can you guys say with me Stephanie?  Say it with me, Stephanie. 00:00:43 TOM LAIRD: Stephanie. 00:00:44 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay.  Take off the E.  Stephan. 00:00:47 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Stephan.  Did you call him Stephen Kinsella?  Did you call him – did you actually call him Stephen Kinsella in the intro? 00:00:55 TOM LAIRD: Who? 00:00:55 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, he did.  It's fine.  I'm used to it.  I'm used to it. 00:00:59 TOM LAIRD: It you want it pronounced differently, spell it differently. 00:01:03 00:01:05 STEPHAN KINSELLA: You can't blame someone's mother – so this is the thing.  You can't blame their mother, man.  You've got to – there's boundaries. 00:01:13 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I know.  I blame my mom for tons of shit. 00:01:17 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what? 00:01:18 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don't know if I should say it publicly. 00:01:25 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, then don't tease us.  Come on. 00:01:27 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: My ex-girlfriend blamed my mom's mom for tons of shit as well. 00:01:33 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what?  Give me one example, just one. 00:01:36 00:01:39 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don't – right at the beginning of the show?  There might be new listeners tuning from Twitter.  I tell you what.  They'll have to actually start one of those websites where they vote.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 326. Back on May 24, 2020, I appeared on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff’s recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. I was a bit drunk and it shows, and went off on a rant and was not as coherent as usual. The episode was entitled "Under the Influence... of Stephan Kinsella... Against Intellectual Property". We recorded a second episode on May 30, 2020, entitled "A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella...," which was released as KOL289. I just realized I never posted the initial episode, so here it is, warts and all (unfortunately for fans of my drunken rants, I have quit drinking alcohol since I realized it's a destructive poison with no benefits at all, so this won't happen again). Previous episode: KOL289 | Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation… See various links, embeds, notes below. Youtube of the current discussion: Previous Youtube from KOL289. Antony’s previous debate with Mossoff: In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, “Patents and the Wealth of Nations,” 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here:  “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”–see in particular note 3 and accompanying text.

Listen in to the LEC's virtual Symposium on the Economics and Law of Pharmaceutical Regulation: Emerging Issues to hear a panel discussion on "Emerging State Interventions in Patent Settlements and Other Intellectual Property Matters Affecting Pharmaceuticals" featuring:  Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School David Reichenberg, Co-Chair, Antitrust, Cozen O'Connor Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Melissa Feeney Wasserman, Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law   To watch the full video recording of the panel discussion, click here. 

The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group is pleased to host this panel discussion on the elimination of the injunction presumption by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange (2006), and what impact this decision has had on the patent system, especially with respect to the concepts of “efficient infringement,” patent-owner leverage (or lack thereof) and the innovation economy. Our distinguished panelists will offer diverse perspectives on these issues and more.Featuring: -- Mr. David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance-- Hon. Paul R. Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit -- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute-- Moderator: Mr. Robert J. Rando, Partner, Taylor English Duma LLP; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society Intellectual Property Practice Group---

Drug prices are a pressing policy issue. On November 20, 2020, President Donald Trump announced two new rules aimed at reducing drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. These rules use a system known as reference pricing, which ties the price the federal government pays for patented drugs and treatments to the prices other countries pay. These rules are set to take effect in January 2021. Meanwhile, legislation pending in the U.S. House of Representatives and supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would create an International Pricing Index.These policies enjoy bipartisan support, but they also face bipartisan opposition. Some think the Trump rules do not go far enough, and others argue that reference pricing is bad policy regardless.In this episode, two distinguished experts who have worked and written extensively on this issue, Prof. Adam Mossoff and Dr. Wendell Primus, join us for a discussion of reference pricing, current policy proposals, and future challenges.Featuring:- Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University- Wendell Primus, Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi- [Moderator] Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist SocietyVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Drug prices are a pressing policy issue. On November 20, 2020, President Donald Trump announced two new rules aimed at reducing drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. These rules use a system known as reference pricing, which ties the price the federal government pays for patented drugs and treatments to the prices other countries pay. These rules are set to take effect in January 2021. Meanwhile, legislation pending in the U.S. House of Representatives and supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would create an International Pricing Index.These policies enjoy bipartisan support, but they also face bipartisan opposition. Some think the Trump rules do not go far enough and others argue that reference pricing is bad policy regardless.Two distinguished experts who have worked and written extensively on this issue, Prof. Adam Mossoff and Dr. Wendell Primus, join us for a moderated discussion of reference pricing, current policy proposals, and future challenges.Featuring:-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute; Visiting Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation-- Dr. Wendell Primus, Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Former Minority Staff Director, Joint Economic Committee-- Moderator: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On October 28, 2020 the Federalist Society's Akron Student Chapter hosted George Horvath and Adam Mossoff for a discussion of how patents can affect medical innovation. Specifically, the two discussed how patents have already come into play in the response to COVID-19, and how they will continue to do so as the fight against the pandemic evolves.Featuring:- George Horvath, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law- Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University- [Moderator] Camilla Hrdy, Associate Professor of Law, University of Akron School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Today's guest is Professor Adam Mossoff, a leading scholar of intellectual property and Co-Founder of Scalia Law's Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP). Three years ago, CPIP and the Gray Center co-hosted a major conference on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a new regulatory body empowered to revoke companies' patents through an administrative process instead of a... Source

Today’s guest is Professor Adam Mossoff, a leading scholar of intellectual property and Co-Founder of Scalia Law’s Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP). Three years ago, CPIP and the Gray Center co-hosted a major conference on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a new regulatory body empowered to revoke companies’ patents through an […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/adam-mossoff-on-the-innovation-economy-and-the-administrative-state/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

We sit down with Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at George Mason University, to discuss the history of intellectual property. Key Discussion Points: The history of intellectual property The relation of patents to invention and progress What reforms the patent system needs today Adam Mossoff is a Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. He has published extensively on intellectual property rights and innovation policy. His scholarship has been relied on by the U.S. Supreme Court and by federal agencies, and he has been invited five times to testify before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on intellectual property legislation. He has been invited to speak at the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Department of Justice, among other public and private institutions. In addition to his academic articles, his writings on intellectual property policy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Washington Times, Newsweek, and in other media outlets. In addition to his position at Scalia Law, Professor Mossoff is Co-Chair of the Technology, Innovation, and Intellectual Property program of the Classical Liberal Institute at NYU School of Law. He also holds numerous positions at research and policy organizations, including serving as Chair of the Intellectual Property Working Group of the Regulatory Transparency Project at the Federalist Society, Senior Fellow and Chair of the Forum for Intellectual Property at the Hudson Institute, Visiting Intellectual Property Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding. He is also a member of the Intellectual Property Rights Advisory Committee of ANSI and he has served as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee of the IEEE-USA. Links: Progress Studies for Young Scholars: https://progressstudies.school The Academy of Thought and Industry: https://thoughtandindustry.com The Roots of Progress Blog: https://rootsofprogress.org Higher Ground Education: https://tohigherground.org

Welcome to Clause 8 – the Voice of IP. Clause 8 is part of IPWatchdog and hosted by Eli Mazour. If you enjoy listening, please subscribe on your favorite podcasting app, share it with others, and leave a five-star rating. This episode features an interview with Professor Adam Mossoff from George Mason University’s Scalia Law School. He is the leading academic expert when it comes to intellectual property policy issues. Most significantly, he is largely responsible for providing the intellectual foundation that has helped shift the anti-patent narrative in Washington, DC. There’s a good chance that you’ve come across his many op-eds on IP issues in publications such as the Wall Street Journal or have seen his engaging testimony at Congressional Hearings. On this episode, Eli and Professor Mossoff discuss many subjects, including: • how Richard Epstein influenced Professor Mossoff’s scholarship, • how the ideals of classical liberalism relate to intellectual property rights, • the debate among conservatives and libertarians regarding IP issues • what’s wrong about framing IP rights as being all about providing incentives, • the Supreme Court’s approach to patent cases, • why Congress and the executive branch – not the Supreme Court - are the better path for improving America’s patent system • “Why Do Law Professors Do What They Do?” • how law school professors influence the patent policy debate, • how trade organizations try to shape the patent policy debate by using law professors and other prominent attorneys, • importance of law school professors making it clear when they’re acting as advocates v. as academics, • navigating junk science studies/statistical claims about the patent system, • importance of engaging in a positive research agenda about the patent system instead of just reacting to bad scholarship, • empirical research overwhelmingly contradicting the patent holdup theory over the last 10 years, • educating Congressman Darrell Issa and the importance of having evidence and data on your side, • contradiction of China strengthening its own patent system while continuing to steal IP from other countries and having no rule of law otherwise, • the unprecedented response by the pharmaceutical industry to the COVID‑19 pandemic thanks to the foundation previously created by America’s patent system, and • how current changes to the patent system can undermine a similar response to the future.

In this episode of Alternating Current, Professor Adam Mossoff discusses the current state of the U.S. patent system, the historical importance of the U.S. patent system, and what policies Congress can enact to improve it.

This is my appearance on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff’s recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. See various links, embeds, notes below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 289. [Update: Transcript appended below] This is my appearance on the Scottish Liberty Podcast from May 30, 2020, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff's recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. See various links, embeds, notes below. This was the second take, and entitled "A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella...," because we had previously recorded a discussion on May 24, 2020, in which I was a bit drunk and went off on a rant. The episode was entitled "Under the Influence... of Stephan Kinsella... Against Intellectual Property". We then recorded this current episode on May 30, 2020. [Update: I recently (March 2021) realized I never posted the initial episode, so have just posted it as KOL326 | Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence…] See various links, embeds, notes below. Youtube of the current discussion: Youtube of the initial discussion, now posted at KOL326: Antony's previous debate with Mossoff: In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, "Patents and the Wealth of Nations," 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here:  “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”--see in particular note 3 and accompanying text. ❧ Transcript Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation With Stephan Kinsella (May 30, 2020) [Transcript of "Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation (May 30, 2020)] 00:00:01 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Greetings people of planet Earth.  It must be episode 156 of the Scottish Liberty Podcast with me, Antony Sammeroff, and that ranty, ranty man, Tom Laird, back with us again. 00:00:15 TOM LAIRD: Thank you. 00:00:15 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Sorry. 00:00:16 TOM LAIRD: I'm free. 00:00:17 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: He's free.  The excellent, the extraordinary Stephan Kinsella.  Don't mispronounce it Stephen.  Don't be that guy.  Don't be that guy.  Only an idiot would do that.  Thank you for joining us. 00:00:33 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Glad to be here with all four of us.  You said there was you, Antony Sammeroff, Tom, and me, so that's four. 00:00:39 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Excellent. 00:00:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I only see three people though. 00:00:43 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So we're going to talk about – you only – for those tuning in on Facebook and YouTube see that I kind of look weird because I'm trying this digital background.  But Zoom thinks that my face is part of the background, so I look… 00:00:57 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I think you're triggering a lot of light-epilepsy people right now. 00:01:00 TOM LAIRD: I think it's because your head looks like a planetoid. 00:01:02 00:01:04 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I am the moon, the orbits, the Earth. 00:01:07 STEPHAN KINSELLA: He looks like a Marvel character like Ego the Living Planet or something. 00:01:12 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So I guess we're going to talk about IP and stuff like that. 00:01:17 TOM LAIRD: Whoa. 00:01:17 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That's crazy.  As some people know, probably heard a couple of weeks ago, I was debating this Adam Mossoff guy.  And there may have been some conversation that we had once before, but we don't talk about that anymore because… 00:01:32 TOM LAIRD: Did he laugh at any point during the… 00:01:34 00:01:37 ANTONY SAMMEROFF: But let's just say that there were some things that could have been said in that discussion that we never speak of – we don't talk about anymore that weren't discussed.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 289. This is my appearance on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff's recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. See various links, embeds, notes below. Youtube of the current discussion: Antony's previous debate with Mossoff: In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, "Patents and the Wealth of Nations," 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here:  “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”--see in particular note 3 and accompanying text.  

Adam Mossoff debates Antony Sammeroff on Intellectual Property, Pharmaceuticals and Covid-19 Corona Virus Vaccine.

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Ben Bayer interviews special guest Adam Mossoff, intellectual property expert and professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, to discuss an alarming plan by lawmakers to bar research companies from patenting Covid-19 drugs, treatments and vaccines. Addressing themes from Mossoff’s recently published article, Congress Plans to Steal the Coronavirus Vaccine, the two discuss: How the proposed plan would impact the development of therapeutics for Covid-19;How the plan’s proponents rely on the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 — and misinterpret its purpose and meaning;Whether the current pandemic is an emergency that justifies expropriating patents;Why enforcing drug patents, and property rights in general, is essential to creating and sustaining the benefits of medicine and the standard of living that we enjoy today;And much more. Watch or listen to the discussion below. To see future episodes of New Ideal Live, join the live Zoom broadcast on Mondays and Wednesdays at 11 a.m. Pacific to take part in the Q&A. Go to https://zoom.us/join and use Meeting ID: 812-506-718. Or catch the livestream or recordings on YouTube and Facebook. Podcast audio:

On April 23, 2020, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., holding that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits.The decision, which vacated and remanded the opinion below from the Federal Circuit, was written by Justice Gorsuch on April 23, 2020. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.To discuss the case, we have Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On April 23, 2020, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., holding that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits.The decision, which vacated and remanded the opinion below from the Federal Circuit, was written by Justice Gorsuch on April 23, 2020. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.To discuss the case, we have Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Under what circumstances may patents be revoked or modified? What process is due? The questions animating Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group have been answered. The Supreme Court Opinion that came down today 7-2 affirms the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, a non-Article III forum without a jury. Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityBrian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. Paul R. Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Co-Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawProf. Melissa Wasserman, Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law, University of Texas LawModerator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Under what circumstances may patents be revoked or modified? What process is due? The questions animating Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group have been answered. The Supreme Court Opinion that came down today 7-2 affirms the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, a non-Article III forum without a jury. Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityBrian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. Paul R. Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Co-Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawProf. Melissa Wasserman, Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law, University of Texas LawModerator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This Teleforum addresses whether there is a need to amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what counts as an invention eligible for receiving patent protection. Between 2010 and 2014, the Supreme Court issued four decisions interpreting and applying Section 101 to business, high-tech, and biotech inventions. In all four cases, the Court held that the patents were invalid for claiming abstract ideas, laws of nature, or facts of nature. Since 2014, federal courts have invalidated many patents in applying the Court’s new rules on patent eligibility. The Patent Office is also rejecting many patent applications. Some people in the innovation industries express concern that the Court’s decisions are vague and provide no objective framework as to whether a claim is patent eligible. Three trade associations, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), and the American Bar Association’s IP Section, have released proposed amendments to Section 101. Others in the innovation industries maintain that the Supreme Court was right to reinvigorate patent eligibility doctrine, tightening up this basic legal standard for obtaining a property right in a new invention or discovery, because too many overbroad and vague patents had been issued in recent years by the Patent Office. These invalid patents, they contend, are clogging the gears of the innovation economy by imposing unnecessary costs on other innovators and consumers. This Teleforum discusses the proposed amendments to the Patent Act, and whether legislative reform of Section 101 is necessary or not.Featuring:Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & ConsultingMr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PCModerator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This Teleforum addresses whether there is a need to amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what counts as an invention eligible for receiving patent protection. Between 2010 and 2014, the Supreme Court issued four decisions interpreting and applying Section 101 to business, high-tech, and biotech inventions. In all four cases, the Court held that the patents were invalid for claiming abstract ideas, laws of nature, or facts of nature. Since 2014, federal courts have invalidated many patents in applying the Court’s new rules on patent eligibility. The Patent Office is also rejecting many patent applications. Some people in the innovation industries express concern that the Court’s decisions are vague and provide no objective framework as to whether a claim is patent eligible. Three trade associations, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA), and the American Bar Association’s IP Section, have released proposed amendments to Section 101. Others in the innovation industries maintain that the Supreme Court was right to reinvigorate patent eligibility doctrine, tightening up this basic legal standard for obtaining a property right in a new invention or discovery, because too many overbroad and vague patents had been issued in recent years by the Patent Office. These invalid patents, they contend, are clogging the gears of the innovation economy by imposing unnecessary costs on other innovators and consumers. This Teleforum discusses the proposed amendments to the Patent Act, and whether legislative reform of Section 101 is necessary or not.Featuring:Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy & ConsultingMr. Dana S. Rao, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Litigation, Adobe Systems, Inc.Mr. Robert Sachs, President, Robert R. Sachs PCModerator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Discussion centers on the uncertainty in the United States patent system and the the “de-propertization” of intellectual property and those organizations that are driving a negative false narrative that patent trolls are ruining the system and the US needs to legislate a new solution. Adam Mossoff Adam Mossoff is Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. He is a founder of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, and is now a Director of Academic Programs and a Senior Scholar. He teaches a wide range of courses at the law school, including property, patent law, trade secrets, trademark law, remedies, and internet law. He has published extensively on the theory and history of how patents and other intellectual property rights are fundamental property rights that should be secured to their owners and legally protected as commercial assets in the marketplace. He has testified before the Senate and the House on patent legislation, and he has spoken at numerous congressional staff briefings and academic conferences, as well as at the PTO, the FTC, the DOJ, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Smithsonian Museum of American History. His writings on patent law and policy have also appeared in the New York Times, Forbes, Investors Business Daily, The Hill, Politico, and in other media outlets. He is a member of the Public Policy Committee of the Licensing Executives Society, an appointed member of the Amicus Committee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and a member of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Copyright Alliance. He has served as past Chair and Vice-Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee of the IEEE-USA.

  IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation. Discussion centers on the uncertainty in the United States patent system and the the “de-propertization” of intellectual property and those organizations that are driving a negative false narrative that patent trolls are ruining the system and […]

On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark), which owns many patents for its printer toner cartridges, allows customers to buy its cartridges through a “Return Program,” which is administered under a combination single-use patent and contract license. Customers purchasing cartridges through the Return Program are given a discount in exchange for agreeing to use each cartridge once before returning it to Lexmark. All of the domestically-sold cartridges at issue here and some of those sold abroad were subject to the Return Program. Impression Products, Inc. (Impression) acquired some Lexmark cartridges abroad--after a third party physically changed the cartridges to enable their re-use--in order to resell them in the United States. Lexmark then sued, alleging that Impression had infringed on Lexmark’s patents because Impression acted without authorization from Lexmark to resell and reuse the cartridges. Impression contended that its resale of the cartridges was not an infringement because Lexmark, in transferring the title by selling the cartridges initially, granted the requisite authority. The district court granted Impression’s motion to dismiss as it related to the domestically sold cartridges but denied it as to the foreign-sold cartridges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as to the domestically sold cartridges but affirmed dismissal regarding the cartridges sold abroad. -- There were two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) whether a “conditional sale” that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent-exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy; and (2) whether, in light of this court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the common-law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article – authorized by the U.S. patentee – that takes place outside the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article. -- By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that (1) Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in toner cartridges sold in the United States through its "Return Program"; and (2) Lexmark cannot sue Impression Products for patent infringement with respect to cartridges Lexmark sold abroad, which Impression Products acquired from purchasers and imported into the United States, because an authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act. The Chief Justice’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Adam Mossoff, who is Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of CPIP, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

The Federalist Society will host a teleforum discussion of Impression Products v. Lexmark International, which is scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court March 21, 2017. At issue in the case is whether a patent owner may use a combination of patent rights and contract law to restrict what purchasers of patented printer toner cartridges may do with the cartridges. Lexmark makes patented toner cartridges and sells them with a restriction that the cartridges not be resold or refilled. Impression Products buys used Lexmark toner cartridges, refills, and resells them. Lexmark argues that Impression Products’ toner refilling activities violate Lexmark’s patent rights because the license to use the patented product that was given to consumers prohibited refilling, thus putting such use and resale of the patented products outside of the scope of the patent license, in violation of Lexmark’s patent rights. For its part, Impression Products argues that the “patent exhaustion” doctrine should operate here to restrict Lexmark from asserting any patent rights after a first, authorized sale. Also at issue is whether first sales in foreign countries instead of the U.S. should affect the outcome. -- The case will have significant effects on the ability of patent owners to control the downstream uses of their patented products, and may affect the ability of patent owners to prevent the importation of “grey market” goods that have been lawfully sold in other countries, similarly to the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2013 copyright case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. -- Featuring: -- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Prof. David Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School; and Mr. Steven Tepp, President & CEO of Sentinel Worldwide; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond.

In the past six years, there has been a momentous shift in what can be patented. In four separate cases, the Supreme Court embraced a more muscular approach in enforcing the basic requirement under § 101 of the Patent Act that only certain types of inventions can be patented, impacting inventive activities ranging from biotech to high-tech to business methods. As a result, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, trial courts, and the Patent Office have responded by sharply restricting the scope of “patentable subject matter," invalidating issued patents and rejecting patent applications at record rates. -- This change has been both consequential and controversial. Inventions that once were patentable in key innovation industries, such as cutting-edge diagnostic tests made possible by the biotech revolution and highly complex computer software in the high-tech sector, are no longer eligible for patent protection. Some welcome this development, seeing it as freeing up basic tools of research and preventing abusive assertions of patents against infringers. Others have criticized this development, identifying lost incentives to invest millions in R&D necessary to produce technological innovation and lost value in existing patents given pervasive uncertainty in the patent system as to what is and is not protectable. -- The lack of certainty is something both sides of this important legal and policy debate have found troublesome. Many agree that the Supreme Court's current patent-eligibility jurisprudence is confusing and murky. The Court's legal test for assessing patentable subject matter has proven unpredictable in its application by courts, by patent examiners, and by the administrative review board at the Patent Office (the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). -- One proposed solution has been to simply abolish § 101, the provision that sets forth the requirement that only an invention comprising a “machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter" is patentable. The argument is that this provision is an antiquated holdover from the first patent statutes that did not have the granular requirements that now exist in the modern Patent Act, ensuing that only novel, nonobvious, useful and fully disclosed inventions are patentable. This panel will consider whether such a radical move is warranted, whether the Supreme Court's patentable subject matter jurisprudence is on the right track, or perhaps whether any problems in patentable subject matter jurisprudence are fixable by the Court or by Congress. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. David J. Kappos, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Mr. Mark A. Perry, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Prof. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Susan G. Braden, U.S Court of Federal Claims.

On October 6, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission released the long-awaited results of its 6(b) study on patent assertion entities (PAEs). The study provides detailed information about the litigation and licensing activities by the approximately twenty companies the FTC ordered to submit data. The study does more than just describe this data, though. Given that PAEs' function in the innovation industries, the FTC also proposed a number of legislative and judicial recommendations concerning how patents are asserted against alleged infringers. Thus, the FTC's PAE study is an important part of the policy debates about patents, patent licensing, patent litigation, and the impact these have on the innovation economy. In this Teleforum, the panelists discussed the study findings and their reactions to the study and its policy proposals. -- Featuring: Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, Associate Professor, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah; Prof. Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law; and Ms. Laurie Self, Vice President and Counsel of Government Affairs, Qualcomm Incorporated. Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of CPIP, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

The America Invents Act (AIA) significantly affects the Constitutional separation of powers by creating a new inter partes review (IPR) regime for challenging an issued patent under an Article II Executive Branch entity, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB). In practice, the PTAB has become an alternative forum for accused infringers to attack patent claims with less risk and expense than in U.S. federal district courts. Combined with the reluctance and sometime refusal of Article III courts (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to exert authority over final application of patent law, the statutory adjudicative powers given PTAB judges give rise to separation of powers issues. -- As a result, patents that have successfully overcome validity challenges in a “final judgment” of a court are now subjected to double jeopardy in the PTAB, and those valuable but limited patent property rights can be challenged and taken away entirely within an Article II administrative forum. At least two cases pending cert before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge provisions of the AIA on separation of power bases (Cooper v. Lee and MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.), while another (Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee) challenging the differences between the PTAB’s and the courts’ claim construction regimes has already been decided. In Cuozzo, the Court upheld the PTAB/USPTO’s application of a different claim construction standard from the courts, tipping the scales against patentees who face a validity challenge during IPRs as compared against in federal district court. Critics of the AIA rules –and particularly IPRs– as applied by the USPTO/PTAB assert that they weaken patents and the patent system, and undermine the incentives for innovation that have driven economic growth for much of this country’s history. This teleforum will include a discussion of the Constitutional challenges to the AIA’s patent review provisions, including the Court’s hints in Cuozzo that it is aware of other Constitutional issues. -- Featuring: Mr. Rob Greenspoon, Founding Member, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Partner, Goldstein & Russell. Moderator: Mr. Trevor K. Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Gilson and Lione.

As Congress debates controversial patent legislation that some say will undermine patent rights, has the U.S. Supreme Court been steadily eroding the scope and enforceability of patents for the past decade? The Supreme Court has made it easier to invalidate patents because an invention is “obvious,” not specific enough, or an “abstract idea.” The Court has also made it more difficult for patent owners to stop or “enjoin” ongoing infringement of their rights and riskier to assert their rights in court. Is the Supreme Court striking the right balance or is it undermining an important property right? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Michael R. Huston, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Jeff Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell. Moderator: Hon. Randall R. Rader, The George Washington University.

Adam Mossoff talks about the patent system and how to get a patent or trademark. We discuss the Innovation Act (HR 9) and how it is harmful to Inventors if passed. Learn how to protect our idea with intellectual property.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 175. This is the fourth of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172. Transcript below. Youtube and slides for this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172. Lecture 4: IP STATUTES AND TREATIES; OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICTIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY AND IDEAS; RIGHTS-BASED ARGUMENTS FOR IP: CREATION AS A SOURCE OF RIGHTS SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 4: IP Statutes and Treaties; Overview of Justifications for IP; Property, Scarcity and Ideas; Rights-based Arguments for IP; Creation as a Source of Rights Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, April 12, 2011 00:00:00 STEPHAN KINSELLA: … economics association groups, and Sheldon Richman is an anti-IP libertarian guy with the Foundation for Economic Education.  He's editor of The Freeman.  He's written some good stuff on IP as well, and he was there.  Roderick Long was there, who's also good on IP, and some other people and also this guy named Adam Mossoff who I've mentioned before I think.  He's an objectivist law professor at George Mason.  He's pro-intellectual property, and he gives this typical Randian line for it.  And Sheldon was relating to me his interaction with this guy and how the debate went.  It was quite fascinating. 00:00:37 Apparently, Mossoff really didn't like getting questions and didn't really know how to respond to a lot of questions to defend the IP view.  So I think that spurred Sheldon to pose this morning a question for Randian IP advocates.  It's already got a lot of comments on the thread.  Check it out.  He basically said I want to ask the Randians if you believe that their property rights come from getting property in things that you value, which is their theory, which we'll go into later today or next class. 00:01:15 Imagine a simple society where there's a tribe and there's one guy who explores – does a lot of investigation trying to figure out the best kind of fruit to eat, and he discovers that there's a lot of berries around and people eat them.  Sometimes they do better.  Sometimes they get sick.  And he discovered there's one berry that is really good, healthy, and nourishing, and he also discovers there's a few that you should not eat. 00:01:42 And according to the Randian theory, it would seem like he has an intellectual property right in that knowledge, in that technique.  And so the question is do the other people in the village who have observed what he's doing and they see which berries he's eating and not eating now, do they have the right to eat the berries they want to eat and not eat they berries they want to eat?  Or do they have to get his permission first?  So he asked them this question as sort of a test of their theory, and of course the answer is, according to their theory, he would not be able – these people need his permission, which is, of course, absurd, which is the point of the hypo, to make them uncomfortable.  I don't expect any serious Randians that would attempt to address it, but it's interesting. 00:02:23 I had a post this week on Mises, and C4SIF, “Let's Make Copyright Opt-OUT.”  I think I mentioned this already to the class before that copyright would be better if it was opt-in, which means you don't get a copyright unless you apply for it, register for it, which used to be the law in the US until '89, 1989.  But when we joined the Berne Convention, we got rid of formalities, so it's automatic now.  And it would be better if we could get rid of that because it would solve this so-called orphan works problem.

To explore whether the Internet and intellectual property are friends or foes, the Center for the Economics of Internet hosted a seminar with Professor Adam Mossoff of the George Mason Law School.

To explore whether the Internet and intellectual property are friends or foes, the Center for the Economics of Internet hosted a seminar with Professor Adam Mossoff of the George Mason Law School.