Podcasts about innovation law

This week, Scott was joined by his colleagues Kevin and Eugenia—in what is sadly her last episode before leaving Lawfare—as well as special guest Peter Harrell for a deep dive into the week's national security news, including:“Tariff or Takeoff.” The Trump administration got into what is arguably its first major international spat this week when Colombia's refusal to accept a U.S. military flight returning migrants to that country led President Trump to threaten an array of punitive measures, from visa cut-offs to sanctions and tariffs. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro backed down, the White House was quick to claim victory. But how sustainable is Trump's strategy? And is it really the route to restoring respect for the United States that the White House claims it is?“Talk to Me When They Get To ‘Project: The Fifth Element.'” Last week, the Trump administration announced Project Stargate—an initiative not to revive ‘90s sci-fi classics, but to instead make a massive investment in the U.S. development of artificial intelligence and related technologies. But a few days later, an announcement by Chinese AI platform DeepSeek indicating it had reached comparable results at a lower cost triggered a sudden decline in the value of AI-related stocks. What do these developments tell us about the competitive dynamics surrounding AI? And how should the United States be navigating them?“A Friend in Need is a Friend Shit Out of Luck.” The Trump administration has issued an across-the-board freeze of U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days as it reviews them for consistency with the administration's vision of “America First” foreign policy. But what ramifications will this pause really have for U.S. foreign policy and beyond?For object lessons, Kevin plugged the Seattle University School of Law's Technology, Innovation Law, and Ethics Program. Eugenia got back to her roots in recommending the indie RPG video game Wildermyth, which follows a troupe of fantasy heroes from modest origins through their sunset years. Scott out-nerded Eugenia by recommending a pen-and-paper indie RPG, the physically gorgeous Thousand Year Old Vampire. And Peter kept it professional by recommending Arthur Herman's book “Freedom's Forge” as a case study on U.S. industrial policy that may have lessons for our current historical moment.Use promo code RATIONALSECURITY at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an Incogni annual plan:https://incogni.com/rationalsecurityTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott was joined by his colleagues Kevin and Eugenia—in what is sadly her last episode before leaving Lawfare—as well as special guest Peter Harrell for a deep dive into the week's national security news, including:“Tariff or Takeoff.” The Trump administration got into what is arguably its first major international spat this week when Colombia's refusal to accept a U.S. military flight returning migrants to that country led President Trump to threaten an array of punitive measures, from visa cut-offs to sanctions and tariffs. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro backed down, the White House was quick to claim victory. But how sustainable is Trump's strategy? And is it really the route to restoring respect for the United States that the White House claims it is?“Talk to Me When They Get To ‘Project: The Fifth Element.'” Last week, the Trump administration announced Project Stargate—an initiative not to revive ‘90s sci-fi classics, but to instead make a massive investment in the U.S. development of artificial intelligence and related technologies. But a few days later, an announcement by Chinese AI platform DeepSeek indicating it had reached comparable results at a lower cost triggered a sudden decline in the value of AI-related stocks. What do these developments tell us about the competitive dynamics surrounding AI? And how should the United States be navigating them?“A Friend in Need is a Friend Shit Out of Luck.” The Trump administration has issued an across-the-board freeze of U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days as it reviews them for consistency with the administration's vision of “America First” foreign policy. But what ramifications will this pause really have for U.S. foreign policy and beyond?For object lessons, Kevin plugged the Seattle University School of Law's Technology, Innovation Law, and Ethics Program. Eugenia got back to her roots in recommending the indie RPG video game Wildermyth, which follows a troupe of fantasy heroes from modest origins through their sunset years. Scott out-nerded Eugenia by recommending a pen-and-paper indie RPG, the physically gorgeous Thousand Year Old Vampire. And Peter kept it professional by recommending Arthur Herman's book “Freedom's Forge” as a case study on U.S. industrial policy that may have lessons for our current historical moment.Use promo code RATIONALSECURITY at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an Incogni annual plan:https://incogni.com/rationalsecurityTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our final episode of the season we reconnect with Michael Weinberg, Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy, for the recent legal cases revolving around generative AI models and the continuing impact of the monkey selfie legal case. Episode page with notes and transcript This season of the podcast was produced with the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law and Policy at NYU. Our host is Lee Tusman. Our audio production is by Max Ludlow. All of the music on today's episode are by our audio engineer Max Ludlow. The tracks are Body Memory, Poole and Relic, CC BY. This episode is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Kat Walsh from Creative Commons joins us to talk about the history of Creative Commons as a 'hack on copyright.' Marc Weidenbaum speaks on the history of the Disquiet Junto, a long-running online distributed community creating new music in response to a weekly online composition challenge. Episode notes, credits and transcript In this season of the podcast we're working in collaboration with the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law. In addition to our usual crop of artists and programmers we're adding in legal scholars to help us unpack some of the thorny issues for those working in art and code as they unleash their work into the world. In this episode we dive into the world of Creative Commons, which is now over 20 years old. It is both an organization as well as a collection of copyright licenses used by artists, musicians, writers, directors and creators worldwide to communicate to the world how they want their work shared and potentially to be used as a source to build upon. We also speak to Marc Weidenbaum, founder and steward of the Disquiet Junto, an online “community of practice.” Each week Marc sends out an email newsletter with a creative prompt, consisting of a title, and instructions. These instructions may read like a Fluxus event score, a recipe in sound, a concept or technical description. Those who choose to participate create a single piece of music, then post it online, to be shared, listened to and potentially discussed by the online community. Marc has been leading Disquiet Junto since 2012, and from the beginning has encouraged participants to share their work with Creative Commons licenses. In fact the creative re-use of Creative Commons licensed sound and music has often been an integral part of Disquiet Junto creative prompts. Guests Kat Walsh is the General Counsel at Creative Commons. She has a nearly 20-year history in the free and open culture movements, including many years on the boards of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, and has previously worked in library policy, technology startups, and online community management. As General Counsel, she oversees the legal support for all aspects of CC's activities, provides strategic input, leads the stewardship of CC's legal tools, and advises the organization on new programmatic initiatives. image description: a black and white image of Marc looking to the right. He has dark hair and a close cropped beard, wearing a high collared knit sweater and black frame glasses. Marc Weidenbaum founded the website Disquiet.com in 1996 at the intersection of sound, art, and technology, and since 2012 has moderated the Disquiet Junto, an active online community of weekly music/sonic projects that explore constraints as a springboard for creativity and productivity. Links Creative Commons Licenses and Tools Creative Commons talks with Marc Weidenbaum Email announcement list for the Disquiet Junto Marc's website Disquiet, on the intersection of sound, art and technology Credits Our audio production is by Max Ludlow. Design by Caleb Stone. Our music on today's episode is all taken from Creative Commons licensed music created as part of the Disquiet Junto. all at fives, sixes and sevens by wasabicube, CC BY NC SA. three euclidean rhythms, CC BY NC SA, by Lee Evans/Hippies Wearing Muzzles, both from disquiet0567 Three Meters. Ways, CC BY NC SA, by the artist analoc for disquiet0482 Exactly That Gap. Little Green Aura, CC BY NC SA, by he_nu_ri and lako by Ohm Research, for disquiet0566 Outdoor Furniture Music four voice folly by caustic_gates, CC BY NC SA, part of disquiet0565 Musical Folly much too young to…, CC BY, by NolanVerde for disquiet0066 Communing with Nofi, a posthumous collaboration with the artist Jeffrey Melton, aka Nofi, who passed in 2013. This episode is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

This episode kicks off our season working with the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. We talk about copyright and its limits; licenses and ethical open source; and the infamous monkey selfie legal case. This episode features conversations with Michael Weinberg, the Executive Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU School of Law. We also speak with computer scientist, game designer and media artist Ramsey Nasser on the Anti-Capitalist Software License. Finally, we join some of the organizers from the ml5.js programming library, which aims to make “machine learning approachable for a broad audience of artists, creative coders, and students.” Episode notes and transcript

Description: This week, we're diving deep into the world of law firm innovation – and it's not about the latest tech or software. Our focus today is on the human side of things: talent, culture, and change management. I'm excited to introduce two pioneering guests who are leading the charge in reimagining what the modern law firm can be. Madeline shares her origin story, discussing her background from Panama and wanting to be a maritime lawyer to her becoming the innovation leader at Reed Smith. Tim talks about his early aspirations to be a fighter pilot, actually being a mailman and pizza delivery guy and his transition into law, eventually leading Ogletree's practice intelligence group to focus on data analysis and innovation. Growing that group from 1 to 30 plus. This is one winding road of unexpected twists and turns. Both discuss the importance of change management vs project management and user engagement in driving adoption of innovative solutions in the legal industry. It's all about the talent. The interview concludes with a discussion about favorite bands and songs. Wrap-up: It's clear that the landscape of law is changing, not just in terms of the technologies we use but more fundamentally in how we think about talent, culture, and change. A big thank you to Madeline Boyer and Tim Fox for sharing their insights and innovative approaches. For more on evolving trends, careers and the business of law, as well as our private events, workshops, and conferences, please follow the Cowen Group at www.cowengroup.com

Today's episode will be an encore presentation of our inaugural session for the Pioneers and Pathfinders Virtual Roundtable Series. Last Wednesday, host Steve Poor had a live and lively discussion with four legal industry experts and thought leaders on the topic “Navigating Risks, Benefits, and Ethical Considerations in the Age of AI,” which focused on generative AI and the implications for the legal industry. These thought leaders—Kiran Mallavarapu, Executive Vice President and Senior Manager of Legal Strategic Services at Liberty Mutual Insurance; D. Joseph Piech, Senior Loss Prevention Counsel at ALAS; Lori Roeser, Partner and General Counsel at Seyfarth Shaw LLP; and Travis Rogers, Director and Senior Managing Counsel of Innovation Law at Allstate—all offered incredible insights and perspective on this interesting and timely topic. Our panelists shared their knowledge, experience, and invaluable insights, as we discussed the risks and ethical implications associated with determining policies, weighing the use of tools and how the rules extend across your organization, and much more. A special thank you to everyone who attended last week. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today.

Legal textbooks have always been expensive but these days, the cost of a new commercially-published antitrust law casebook can range from $300 to $500. What if a high-quality casebook were available at little or no cost? With the support of the ABA Antitrust Law Section, NYU Law School Professors Christopher Sprigman and Daniel Francis recently completed the world's first openly-licensed antitrust law casebook. Listen to this episode as they talk with co-hosts Alicia Downey and Sarah Zhang about this important project and whether eliminating the expense of traditional casebooks might lead to an increase in law students taking antitrust and potentially pursuing careers in the field. With special guests: Daniel Francis, Assistant Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Christopher Jon Sprigman, Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, and Co-Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy Related Links: Daniel Francis & Christopher Jon Sprigman, Antitrust Principles, Cases and Materials Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Sarah Zhang, Baker Botts L.L.P.

We are back with our next fellow highlight episode. Class 4 Fellow Meri Baghdasaryan sits down with Ashkhen Kazaryan, a tech policy expert and a former Foundry Fellow.  Ashkhen manages policy projects related to free speech, content moderation, surveillance reform, and the intersection of constitutional rights and technology. Currently, she is a Senior Fellow at Stand Together on the Free Speech and Peace team. She leads the development and execution of Stand Together's strategy to defend free speech online and to promote a culture of pluralism. Prior to that, she was a Content Policy Manager on the Content Regulation team at Meta. She covered content policy for North and Latin America, as well as leading on policy for Section 230. Before joining Meta, she was the Director of Civil Liberties at TechFreedom where she managed coalition-building and hosted The Tech Policy Podcast. Ashkhen is regularly featured as an expert commentator in news outlets, including CNBC, BBC, FOX DC, Newsy, Politico, Axios, The Information, Protocol, The Washington Examiner, and others. Meri and Ashkhen chat about how Ashkhen's educational and cultural background impacted her journey into tech policy. They discuss the tech policy issues that are top of mind for Ashkhen. She also covers finding your path in the field of tech law and policy and the importance of building community.  You can connect with Ashkhen on LinkedIn and Twitter.  Check out the Foundry on Instagram, Twitter, or LinkedIn and subscribe to our newsletter! If you'd like to support the show, donate to the Foundry here or reach out to us at foundrypodcasts@ilpfoundry.us. Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for our next episode! Additional Resources and Reading: Podcasts: The Tech Policy Podcast Moderated Content University Centers: Stanford Internet Observatory Berkeley Tech Policy Initiative Yale Information Society Project Harvard Berkman Klein Center Cornell Tech Policy Institute New York University Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy UC Boulder Silicon Flatirons Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology Columbia University Knight First Amendment Institute George Washington University Law School Ethical Tech Initiative American University Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology UPenn Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition Think Tanks: ACLU Center for Democracy and Technology Public Knowledge New America Open Technology Institute TechFreedom R Street Chamber of Progress NetChoice CCIA Cases to read about: Gonzalez v. Google Twitter v. Taamneh Netchoice CCIA v Moody Netchoice CCCIA v Paxton DISCLAIMER: Meri engages with the Foundry voluntarily and in her personal capacities. The views and opinions expressed on air do not reflect on the organizations Meri  is affiliated with.

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Professor Jeanne Fromer (Vice Dean and Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Intellectual Property Law, New York University School of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy) delivered the 2023 International Intellectual Property Lecture on "First in Intellectual Property Law" on 14 March 2023 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). Professor Jeanne Fromer specializes in intellectual property, including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and design protection laws. She is a faculty co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. Fromer is the co-author, with Chris Sprigman, of a free copyright textbook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, which is in use at over 65 law schools around the world. In 2011, she was awarded the American Law Institute’s inaugural Young Scholars Medal for her scholarship in intellectual property. Before coming to NYU, Fromer served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the US Supreme Court and to Judge Robert D. Sack of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She also worked at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in the area of intellectual property. Fromer received her JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, serving as articles and commentaries editor of the Harvard Law Review and as editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Fromer earned her BA summa cum laude in computer science from Barnard College, Columbia University. She received her SM in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for research work in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics and worked at AT&T (Bell) Laboratories in those same areas. Fromer was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and she also previously taught at Fordham Law School. For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

CIPIL Spring Conference 2023: Intellectual Property Rights as Allied Rights: Bill Cornish and the Making of Today's Intellectual Property SystemIn 1981, Professor Bill Cornish published the first student textbook on “Intellectual Property”. The book was to prove hugely influential, as academic courses on the subject proliferated around the country. In turn, it spawned a host of imitators, all of whom stuck doggedly with the template Cornish had provided (of treating patents, copyright and trade marks together). However, now in its 9th edition, and curated and updated by Professors David Llewelyn and Tanya Aplin, the text has never been surpassed.One of the most significant aspects of the book was its very categorisation. Entitled “Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights”, the textbook presented the distinct legal regimes as “allied” in important respects. Previously, practitioner texts had treated the fields of copyright, patent, trade marks and designs as deserving of separate treatment (in Copinger; Terrell; Kerly and Russell-Clarke; while, at the international level, the Paris and Berne Conventions had instilled a dichotomy between “industrial property”, on the one hand, and copyright and neighbouring rights on the other. Although it would be inaccurate to attribute the shift in thinking to the Cornish textbook (and certainly there were important precursors, not least establishment of WIPO in 1967), forty years on from the publication of Cornish's seminal text, “intellectual property” has been cemented as a foundational legal concept. The term is deployed in international treaties (e.g. TRIPs, but as a chapter in the vast majority of free trade agreements), in regional instruments (Article 17 of the EU Charter, the EU's Enforcement Directive), in national constitutions, in domestic legislation; the term is used to denominate governmental and non-governmental organisations, not least the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and the now numerous “intellectual property offices” around the world (including the UKIPO and EUIPO). In the UK, the notion of “intellectual property” serves to define the field of operation of distinct civil procedure rules, as well as the remedies available to litigators. Moreover, the concept figures in the names, and to define the operational fields of, professorial chairs (Bill was the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property between 1995 and 2004); institutes (such as CIPIL, which was conceived under Bill's watch and founded to coincide with Bill's retirement), journals (such as the E.I.P.R. and I.P.Q.) and scholarly organisations (such as A.T.R.I.P., to which Bill gave strong support during his career, including as president from 1985-7).Of course, the concept of “intellectual property” has not gone uncriticised, and its usefulness unchallenged. Some institutes and journals have, of late, abandoned the term: the Max Planck Institute is now an institute for “innovation and competition law”, and UCL has an “Institute of Brands and Innovation Law.” The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently been located within the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. At this conference, we bring together scholars and practitioners, many of whom had a first hand relationship with Bill, to consider critically the origin, history, and utility of the notion of “intellectual property”, and more generally of thinking of trade marks, patents and copyright as “allied rights.” Reflecting Bill's origins (in Australia), his cosmopolitanism (in particular his connection, as external academic member (from 1989) at the Max Planck Institute in Munich), and internationalism (as well as being President of A.T.R.I.P. from 1985-7 and Vice-President of A.L.A.I. from 1990), as well as the links he forged between university and practice (as a door tenant at 8 New Square), the conference will bring together a range of perspectives on the...

Each afternoon, kids walk through my neighborhood, on their way home from school, and almost all of them are walking alone, staring down at their phones. It's a troubling site. This daily parade of the zombie children just can't bode well for the future.That's one reason I felt like Gaia Bernstein's new book was talking directly to me. A law professor at Seton Hall, Gaia makes a strong argument that people are so addicted to tech at this point, we need some big, system level changes to social media platforms and other addictive technologies, instead of just blaming the individual and expecting them to fix these issues.Gaia's book is called Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies. It's fascinating and I had a chance to talk with her about it for today's podcast. At its heart, our conversation is really about how and whether we can maintain control over our thoughts and actions, even when some powerful forces are pushing in the other direction.We discuss the idea that, in certain situations, maybe it's not reasonable to expect that we'll be able to enjoy personal freedom and autonomy. We also talk about how to be a good parent when it sometimes seems like our kids prefer to be raised by their iPads; so-called educational video games that actually don't have anything to do with education; the root causes of tech addictions for people of all ages; and what kinds of changes we should be supporting.Gaia is Seton's Hall's Technology, Privacy and Policy Professor of Law, as well as Co-Director of the Institute for Privacy Protection, and Co-Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law Science and Technology. She's the founding director of the Institute for Privacy Protection. She created and spearheaded the Institute's nationally recognized Outreach Program, which educated parents and students about technology overuse and privacy.Professor Bernstein's scholarship has been published in leading law reviews including the law reviews of Vanderbilt, Boston College, Boston University, and U.C. Davis. Her work has been selected to the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum and received extensive media coverage. Gaia joined Seton Hall's faculty in 2004. Before that, she was a fellow at the Engelberg Center of Innovation Law & Policy and at the Information Law Institute of the New York University School of Law. She holds a J.S.D. from the New York University School of Law, an LL.M. from Harvard Law School, and a J.D. from Boston University.Gaia's work on this topic is groundbreaking I hope you'll listen to the conversation and then consider pre-ordering her new book. It comes out on March 28.Leaps.org is a not-for-profit initiative that publishes award-winning journalism, popularizes scientific progress on social media, and hosts events about bioethics and the future of humanity. Visit the platform at www.leaps.org. Podcast host Matt Fuchs is editor-in-chief of Leaps.org.

In this episode, Chris Bennett shares an update regarding his organization Technology-Innovation-Law, where they are on a mission to leverage innovation and technology, to address judicial poverty by enhancing awareness, accessibility, affordability and availability of intellectual property rights (IPR). Hear about his advancements in democratizing access to IPR for all. Their intellectual property lawyers are available for consultation on issues related to intellectual property, from acquisition of patents and trademarks, to evaluation of third party IP rights and infringement, to obtaining intellectual property licenses. They can also assist our clients in negotiating, drafting, or modifying a wide array of IP-related agreements.  Heart Stock is a production of KBMF 102.5.

hree died after the traditional bous al carrer ..........56 yr old in Picassent, 50 years old in Meliana and 64 years old Frenchman in Pedreguer in this year's fiestas. According to the Donetsk People's Republic's Deputy Head of the Ministry of information, the republic will be freed from Ukraine Armed Forces by the end of August. The new Science, Technology and Innovation Law in the Balearic Islands will mean more funds for research and better working conditions for researchers.On July 26, the Parliament of the Balearic Islands approved the new Law on Science, Technology and Innovation of the Balearic Islands (LCTIIB) with the support of all the parliamentary groups, except Vox. The scientific community was represented by the main institutes and organisations dedicated to research in the Balearic Islands. If there's one thing Elon Musk does on Twitter even more often than posting dodgy memes, it's talking about ‘population collapse'.The Tesla CEO and billionaire has been very vocal over recent times about the threat of a reduction in the human population size. British Gas owner Centrica sparked fury today after announcing profits had risen five fold to £1.34billion - just as it emerged UK household energy bills could rocket to £500 a month amid Russian threats to cut Europe's gas supplies. The bumper operating profit for the six months to the end of June compared to the £262m recorded in the same period last year. CARP-R-US fished the Rio Segura at Bigastro for the first time in two months for Round Seven of the Summer-Autumn Series. “And how it had changed!” exclaimed club secretary Steve Fell. “The bankside vegetation, so carefully cleared after 2019 storms is now back to head height in many places.” The river itself was down about half a metre from the previous visit, Steve said, and fell a further 15 centimetres during the match. “Another tough day at the office was expected,” he added. Winner of the match with 2.8 kilos from Peg 2 was Richard Crawshaw, now fishing more regularly after almost a year spent renovating his house. Steve Fell, next door on Peg 1, managed 1.3 kilos with a catch that included two small barbel. “That was to see,” he said. Third was Tony Flett with 1 kilo and Jeremy Fardoe was fourth with 280 grammes. “It is worth mentioning that over 20 terrapins were caught during the match,” Steve said. Further information about the club can be found on its www.carp-r-us.weebly.com website or on the Carp-R-Us Fishing Costa Blanca Facebook page. JUST when you thought you heard it all, up pops an organisation that has recently suggested we should ‘off' old people as a ‘favour to our children'! Yep, you ‘eard. ‘The World Economic Forum' is an extremely well-financed outfit which has its finger in a positive global pie shop. It is also a somewhat shady union of powerful left thinking people who want to change the world

Speaker: Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, NYW Law School Biography: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss is Pauline Newman Professor of Law at NYU Law School and a Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. She is a leading scholar of intellectual property law as well as other science and technology topics. She was a research chemist prior to law school, and later clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger of the US Supreme Court. Among her works on international intellectual property issues are A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: Building a Resilient International Intellectual Property System(2012, with Graeme Dinwoodie), and several co-edited books, including Framing Intellectual Property Law in the 21st century: Integrating Incentives, Trade, Development, Culture, and Human Rights (2018, with Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng); and the IILJ Project volume Balancing Wealth and Health: The Battle Over Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Latin America (2014, with César Rodríguez-Garavito). She was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science at Cambridge University for 2019–20.Abstract: Many countries have responded (or have considered responding) to the COVID pandemic by modifying their intellectual property laws to ensure the availability of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and related information. Some have asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a waiver to excuse any steps they might take that are inconsistent with obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Although a waiver would protect WTO members from challenges in the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, a state that is a party to an international investment agreement (IIA) that includes investor-state dispute resolution has something else to worry about. Investors could claim that its actions amount to an indirect expropriation or a denial fair and equitable treatment in violation of the obligations in the IIA. In this piece, I conduct a thought experiment on how such suits might unfold. The first part describes how states sought or may seek to exercise control over the knowledge and products needed to protect public health during the global pandemic. The second part considers the challenges that investors might lodge and how they might be resolved. I identify the places where safeguards in IIAs that are intended to protect sovereign authority over healthcare may fall short.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, NYW Law School Biography: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss is Pauline Newman Professor of Law at NYU Law School and a Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. She is a leading scholar of intellectual property law as well as other science and technology topics. She was a research chemist prior to law school, and later clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger of the US Supreme Court. Among her works on international intellectual property issues are A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: Building a Resilient International Intellectual Property System(2012, with Graeme Dinwoodie), and several co-edited books, including Framing Intellectual Property Law in the 21st century: Integrating Incentives, Trade, Development, Culture, and Human Rights (2018, with Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng); and the IILJ Project volume Balancing Wealth and Health: The Battle Over Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Latin America (2014, with César Rodríguez-Garavito). She was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science at Cambridge University for 2019–20.Abstract: Many countries have responded (or have considered responding) to the COVID pandemic by modifying their intellectual property laws to ensure the availability of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and related information. Some have asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a waiver to excuse any steps they might take that are inconsistent with obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Although a waiver would protect WTO members from challenges in the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, a state that is a party to an international investment agreement (IIA) that includes investor-state dispute resolution has something else to worry about. Investors could claim that its actions amount to an indirect expropriation or a denial fair and equitable treatment in violation of the obligations in the IIA. In this piece, I conduct a thought experiment on how such suits might unfold. The first part describes how states sought or may seek to exercise control over the knowledge and products needed to protect public health during the global pandemic. The second part considers the challenges that investors might lodge and how they might be resolved. I identify the places where safeguards in IIAs that are intended to protect sovereign authority over healthcare may fall short.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Jon Putnam founded Competition Dynamics as a platform for economic research and testimony at the intersection of intellectual property, competition, and international trade law. From 2001 to 2005, Dr. Putnam held a professorship in the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, University of Toronto. Dr. Putnam has also held academic appointments at the Boston University Graduate School of Management, Columbia University Schools of Law and Business, Vassar College, and Yale College. Dr. Putnam has been retained in more than 100 consulting engagements and has testified more than 40 times in patent, antitrust, copyright, trade secret, contract, and tax actions in federal, state and bankruptcy courts; before the US Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, and Tax Court; in US and international arbitrations; and in regulatory proceedings in Canada and India.In the interview, Jon revealed some of the SEP-related litigation cases he worked on. In one case, the Qualcomm ITC litigation, all US based SEP cross licensing agreements were subpoenaed. That's why Jon and his team was able to create a database how much royalties per paid for 2G, 3G and 4G per SEPs. The results confirm that the price per patent did not increase in standard generation advances. Which in his opinion makes sense as the same R&D efforts and spending per patent was conducted by the companies. In another litigation case, Jon and his team looked at in total 8 SEP determination studies for 2G, 3G and 4G. The argument is that expert witness reports that e.g. use a sample of declared patent to extrapolate this to the overall number of SEPs per standard are biased and the sample as well as the claim charting method is not straight forward and different experts arrive at different results. In light of these disagreements and findings of unreliability, Jon and his team developed a comprehensive method to estimate the likelihood of essentiality for each major contributor's patent portfolio. Here they took into account systematic differences in essentiality probabilities across the studies, contributors and standards. This method aggregated all available information across the studies, and thus forms the single best estimate of essentiality for any given contributor's portfolio.  Jon argues that “best estimate” is therefore the single best observable proxy for the unobservable beliefs held by each party to portfolio licensing negotiations.  Jon and his team also relied on this method as part of computing the relative strengths of industry patent portfolios to predict the payments observed in SEP licenses, in the recent Apple v Qualcomm litigation. The results show that expectations of each portfolio's essentiality rate are an important component of the portfolio's relative strength. 

Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology and Jacques talk about the 'medical apartheid' which is confirmed (yet again) and made worse by the maldistribution of the COVID vaccines between the rich and the poor nations.Yet again, a political and economic collection of (i) economic powerholders (read: the pharmaceutical industries and those who derive their personal wealth from their operations) and (ii) developed nations (the EU, the Trump-US and, till a few days ago, Australia) want to protect the developed nations by protecting the 'Intellectual Property Rights' ('TRIPS') of vaccines made by companies who developed and then 'own' the vaccines and make money out of them. (This is the case even when public money has contributed to their development, as discussed in previous programs). These companies and a number of rich nations have been refusing to waive the TRIPS and allow the vaccines to be produced and distributed more fairly. We're a long way off anything resembling 'global health justice' it seems... ACTION: You can let the Trade and Investment Minister, Dan Tehan, know that you support Australia signing the 'TRIPS waiver' so that poorer nations can produce and distribute COVID vaccines: (02) 6277 7420, or (03) 5572 1100.Fpr an update...see The New Daily 11/10/2021https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/10/11/donate-vaccines-end-covid-for-all/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020211011     

Do you want a thriving career in Data Protection?Samuel Nguwu, Nigeria' s most up and coming Privacy Pro, reveals how pivoting his career to Data Privacy doubled his salary! In this value-packed episode, we reveal how a mentor can be the difference between living a life of mediocrity and living a life filled with passion. Samuel explains why you need a mentor and shares the strategies that have really helped him to start a thriving career. Discover how you too can achieve the career you've always dreamed of. Samuel is a Data Privacy Analyst at NDPR Consultants. Samuel obtained his LL.B degree from the University of Ibadan (UI) in 2019. Proceeding thereafter to the Nigerian Law School Abuja Campus, he completed his one-year professional training program and was called to the Nigerian Bar in September 2020 as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. A budding Data Privacy Practitioner, Samuel has worked and advised some multi-national companies in Nigeria on NDPR compliance. He is in a team that just concluded research work for One Trust Data Guidance on the application of NDPR to digital advertising in Nigeria. Samuel has authored some published articles in Data Privacy: X-Rays: Deconstructing Personal Data Under the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation; Examinations: Data Subjects' Rights Under the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation 2019' published in Lexology and Mondaq, ‘Sheep Shepherd Responsibility: Between the Data Controller and Processor'; Data Colonialism: Comments On National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA)'s Advisory On WhatsApp's New Privacy Policy In Nigeria Samuel is a member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) member, Stakeholders in Blockchain Association of Nigeria (SiBAN), Innovation Law club Africa, Sigma Club, and Young Lawyers Mentoring If you want to make it as a successful Privacy Pro and take your career to a new level - You can't afford to miss out on this episode! Listen Now... Follow Jamal on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmjahmed/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmjahmed/) Connect with Samuel on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samuel-ngwu-2b1a04158/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/samuel-ngwu-2b1a04158/) Apply to Join the Private Privacy Pros Academy Facebook Group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/privacypro (https://www.facebook.com/groups/privacypro) • Free Weekly LIVE Training • Free Data Privacy ‘How To' Guides • Latest Data Protection Updates • Reports on GDPR Enforcement Action • Get Your Questions Answered by The King of Data Protection https://www.facebook.com/groups/privacypro (https://www.facebook.com/groups/privacypro)

I interview Prof. Scott Hemphill, Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and co-director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy. There aren't many human beings who would be a better expert to speak to regarding the various lawsuits in the real estate industry.We discuss the various class action lawsuits on commissions (Moehrl, Sitzer, Leeder, etc.) and what the issues are. We discuss REX v. Zillow as well as REX v. Oregon, which deals with the anti-rebate provisions in Oregon. We discuss policy as Prof. Hemphill is actively involved in policy discussions around antitrust, technology, and innovation.This was one of the most enjoyable and enlightening conversations I've ever had, and I thank Prof. Hemphill for his time and insights.

As the founder of TIL, Chris is on a mission to leverage innovation and technology, addressing judicial poverty by enhancing awareness, accessibility, affordability and availability of intellectual property rights (IPR). Chris shares his story on this episode of Heart Stock Radio. Heart Stock is a production of KBMF 102.5 and underwritten by Purse for the People.

New York recently launched a vaccine passport called the "Excelsior Pass." Brian Behlendorf, general manager of Blockchain Healthcare and Identity at the Linux Foundation of Public Health, talks about what it is, and how people in the open source community are advocating for systems like these to be linked, so people don't need multiple apps. Then, Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) at the Urban Justice Center, a New York–based civil rights and privacy group, and a fellow at the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law & Policy at NYU School of Law shares concerns about privacy and the digital divide.

The safest way to return to full-capacity mass gatherings is to make sure attendees have been vaccinated. The right software could help, but there are some privacy and equity concerns. On Today's Show:New York recently launched a vaccine passport called the "Excelsior Pass." Brian Behlendorf, general manager of Blockchain Healthcare and Identity at the Linux Foundation of Public Health, talks about what it is, and how people in the open source community are advocating for systems like these to be linked, so people don't need multiple apps. Then, Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) at the Urban Justice Center, a New York–based civil rights and privacy group, and a fellow at the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law & Policy at NYU School of Law shares concerns about privacy and the digital divide.

In this episode of "Keen On", Andrew is joined by Albert Fox Cahn, the founder and executive director of Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), to discuss the logistics and ethics behind proposed vaccine passports. Albert Fox Cahn is the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project’s ( S.T.O.P.’s) founder and executive director, a member of the Ashoka Fellowship Network, a fellow at the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at N.Y.U. School of Law, a member of the NYU Alliance for Public Interest Technology, and a columnist for Gotham Gazette. As a lawyer, technologist, writer, and interfaith activist, Mr. Cahn began S.T.O.P. in the belief that emerging surveillance technologies pose an unprecedented threat to civil rights and the promise of a free society. Mr. Cahn is a frequent commentator on civil rights, privacy, and technology matters and a contributor to numerous publications, including the New York Times, Slate, NBC Think, Newsweek, and the N.Y. Daily News. and he has lectured and presented his research at numerous universities including Harvard Law School, New York University School of Law, Columbia University, and Dartmouth College. Mr. Cahn previously served as legal director for a statewide civil rights organization, and as an associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, where he advised Fortune 50 companies on technology policy, antitrust law, and consumer privacy. In addition to his work at S.T.O.P., Mr. Cahn serves on the New York Immigration Coalition’s Immigrant Leaders Council, the New York Immigrant Freedom Fund’s Advisory Council, and is an editorial board member for the Anthem Ethics of Personal Data Collection. Mr. Cahn received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School (where he was an editor of the Harvard Law & Policy Review), and his B.A. in Politics and Philosophy from Brandeis University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello podcast listeners, Today is a very special episode with Dan Bush, CIO and Director of Innovation at Law Finance Group. Prior to joining Law Finance Group, Dan had a successful private practice doing commercial litigation and did transactional work in the Bay Area at Townsend & Crew (now Kilpatrick Townsend LLP) and Gunderson Dettmer LLP. He also worked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 6 years. He earned his JD from Stanford Law School and his Bachelors in Philosophy from Dartmouth College. In today’s episode we discuss the financial challenges law firms face due to Covid. Enjoy and thanks for the listen!

Part 1: NYPD statistics and Stop, Question, and Frisk  Part 2: The Lockport NY School Facial Recognition Part 3: Stranger than Science Fiction: Steven Spielberg's Minority Report OUTROAs a reminder, make sure to share our episode with your friends and leave a rating on your podcatcher of choice.We are brought to you by STOP, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and The Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law. This podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 International License.Our Production team is: Producers Alex Brook Lynn of Racket Media and Fabian Rogers of STOPSound Engineering by Adam Chimera Research Assistant: Carrie MaGee  Video production support from Alexia Hall Additional Reference Materials:Stefanie Coyle & Rashida Richardson's report on Lockport - https://ainowinstitute.org/regulatingbiometrics-coyle-richardson.pdfAli Winston's report on private donors funding the cops - https://www.propublica.org/article/private-donors-supply-spy-gear-to-cops

INTRO:Welcome to Surveillance And The City, your glimpse at the technology tracking us all. I’m your host, Albert Fox Cahn. With me today A.I. activist Liz O’Sullivan, and journalist Ali Winston.This week, we look at the impact that policing and surveillance had on the recent election. Then, we look at the ways that technology impacted the vote. How did Americans navigate record levels of misinformation, disinformation, and the all-too-real threat of electronic election meddling?  And for Stranger Than Science Fiction, we look back at the Robert Heinlein classic: starship troopers. What does a futuristic tale of battling bugs in outer space have to do with democracy, you’ll have to stay tuned to find out. Part 1 - Policing as an election issue:How did BLM protests impact the outcome?90% of voters said it was a factor.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/black-lives-matter-protests.html“Among those who cited the protests as a factor, 53 percent voted for Mr. Biden, and 46 percent for Mr. Trump”Do mass demonstrations move the needle on election day, are we too partisan for it to have an impact?Does that even matter, or is that besides the point of mass demonstrations? Ad break:We don’t pay for targeted ads or sketchy ad tech, we rely on you to help grow our audience. Please take just 3 minutes to share us on your sketchy social media platform of choice. And if you really want to help, leave a 5-star rating and review to help train the podcast AI that we’re awesome. Part 2 - Election Technology:The real risk of cyber attacksWhat went wrongnothing it seemswhat could have gone wrongvoter registrationDDOSvoting machineshttps://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/initial-signs-point-to-surprisingly-hack-free-election-but-risks-remain-434094Imagined claims of voter fraud and other disinformationHow is this impacting the legitimacy of the outcomehow have media outlets handled itFox NewsTwitter / FacebookLive video platformsHow do we improve this in the future? Stranger Than Science Fiction - Starship Troopers:With trump trying to litigate “election fraud” claims against “out of state voters” who were actually allowed to vote because of the military, it's an interesting time to think back to the premise of Starship Troopers, a world where only veterans were allowed to vote.At a time of fracturing civil society, does some sort of national service campaign make sense?Should we allow military votes to be received later than others? OUTRO:As a reminder, make sure to share our episode with your friends and leave a rating on your podcatcher of choice.We are brought to you by STOP, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, and The Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law. This podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 International License.Our Production team is: Producers Alex Brook Lynn of Racket Media and Fabian Rogers of STOPSound Engineering by Adam ChimeraResearch Assistant: Carrie MageeVideo production support from Alexia Hall Additional Reference Materials:Starship Troopers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)LA Times Article on Signature Verification - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-28/2020-election-voter-signature-verification

INTRO:Welcome to Surveillance And The City, your glimpse at the technology tracking us all. I’m your host, Albert Fox Cahn. With me today A.I. activist Liz O’Sullivan, and in her podcast debut, Professor Rashida Richardson of Rutgers Law School.This week, we pick apart the charred remains of this week’s election, discussing what it means for potential privacy laws in DC and at the state level. And for Stranger Than Science Fiction, we look back at Franchise, the Isaac Asimov story that asks if in the world of computers we would even need elections. Part 1 - FederalJUSTICE IN FORENSIC ALGORITHMS ACTBillSummary: would require that source code be made available to criminal defendants in all cases in which such algorithms are used (Harvard Data Science Review)Introduced by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA-41) who won reelection on Tuesday with 64% of the votePart of the Vision for Black Lives policy platformTakano talks about reaching out to Republicans but does not reference actually having any; this piece of legislation was considered to be something that might have come to more prominence if the Senate had gone blue, which was at least a possibility to occur on Tuesday night (but didn’t). Given the gridlock in Washington inherent with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House and President, this is now considered less likely.FACIAL RECOGNITION LEGISLATIONBill: would ban the use of facial recognition technology unless a federal law existed laying out standards for the use, access and retention of the data collected from biometric surveillance systems; standards for accuracy rates by gender, skin color and age; rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech, and racial, gender and religious equity; and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act.Would demand state/local gov’ts also comply or risk federal funding for police training and equipmentSenators Markey and Merkley introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act in June (NBC)Merkley held onto his seat by a healthy margin on Tuesday, up against a Republican Qanon believer, Jo Rae PerkinsSimilar to Forensic Algorithms Act, it may have done better in a Democratic senate, which would have a smoother legislative path forward. It will need at least some Republican support to leave the Senate, and so far its only supporters are Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders, who is registered as Independent.The bill has languished before the Senate Judiciary since June.WaPo’s Editorial Board endorsed it in JulyThough there re no Republican sponsors of this specific bill, there is Republican support for restricting the use of facial recognition:Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH-4) (who won handily against Democratic challenger Shannon Freshour Tuesday night despite ongoing accusations of covering up sexual abuse at Ohio State University): “Seems to me it’s time for a timeout,” he said. “Doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on, this should concern us all.”Then there are the local bills that could become a template; they’re already spreadingSF to other citiesWA State bill by Microsoft touted by Brad Smith as template for federal legislation during the BLM FRT backlash Ad breakWe don’t pay for targeted ads or sketchy ad tech, we rely on you to help grow our audience. Please take just 3 minutes to share us on your sketchy social media platform of choice. And if you really want to help, leave a 5-star rating and review to help train the podcast AI that we’re awesome. Part 2 – State LegislationCALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 24Status – As of 11/4/2020 at 3:07pm ET, with 99% of precincts reporting:6,347,485 (56.09%) in favor4,969,444 (43.91%) againstSource - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_24,_Consumer_Personal_Information_Law_and_Agency_Initiative_(2020)ProvisionsCCPA cutoff goes from 50,000 people’s data to 100,000.limits CCPA to businesses that earn most revenue from selling consumer dataCops can order data held for 180 days in anticipation of court orderAllows personal information to be shared with the government if a person is at risk of danger of death or serious physical injury, with certain limitsAdditionally requires businesses to:Upon a consumer’s request, not share the consumer’s personal information;Provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;Obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers younger than 13; andUpon a consumer’s request, correct the consumer’s inaccurate personal information.Eliminates the 30-day period for businesses to fix CCPA violationsEstablishes California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforceMICHIGAN PROPOSAL 2Status: As of 11/4/20 at 12:23pm ET, with 69% of precincts reporting:1,890,107 (88.80%) votes in favor.238,303 (11.20%) votes against.Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)Provisions: The Michigan Constitution is amended to:Prohibit unreasonable searches or seizures of a person’s electronic data and electronic communications; andRequire a search warrant to access a person’s electronic data or electronic communications. Part 3 -  Stranger than science fiction OUTRO:As a reminder, make sure to share our episode with your friends and leave a rating on your podcatcher of choice.We are brought to you by STOP, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, and The Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law.This podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 International License.Our Production team is: Producers Alex Brook Lynn of Racket Media and Fabian Rogers of STOPSound Engineering by Adam Chimera Research Assistant: Carrie MageeVideo production support from Alexia Hall Additional Notes:The Domain Awareness System:https://www.stopspying.org/latest-news/2019/9/26/domain-awareness-systemThe Surveillance Assemblage: https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF3700/v17/bakgrunnsnotat/the_surveillant_assemblage.pdfFranchise by Isaac Asimov:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)Know Your Rights Video Series:https://youtu.be/EBNH7S-1pMs

Katie and Steve speak with Michael Weinberg, the Executive Director of the Engelberg Center of Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law School, about 3D digitization of gallery, library, archive and museum (“GLAM”) institution collections, the goals and motivations for such projects, and how digitization implicates (or doesn’t) rightsholders.  They also discuss the open access framework in which these digitization projects occur, the difference between 2D and 3D copying, and the legal and ethical frameworks at play. Resources: https://glam3d.org/ https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/engelberg https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/engelberg/team/weinberg https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/25/421/2325910/

It turns out that the West Coast doesn't have a lock on law and tech innovation. On this episode, we talk with four guests who are involved in the upcoming NYU Law and Tech: Impact on Innovation, coming up on October 15, 2019. Our guests today are Felicity Conrad is a NYU grad and CoFounder and CEO of Paladin. Michael Weinberg is the Executive Director at the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at NYU. Christian Lang, Head of Strategy at Reynen Court. And, Anna McGrane is also an NYU Law alum, and is the Co-founder and COO of PacerPro. Each discuss their individual experiences with legal tech innovation, and how the NYU campus has become an launching point for many of its grads toward the legal technology and innovation community. From start-ups to meet-ups, our guests believe that NYU is showing that innovation can have a definite East Coast flavor. Information Inspirations The Return of FREE PACER!! Northwestern University's Interdisciplinary team, which includes seven law faculty, including our previous guest, Tom Gaylord, was awarded a National Science Foundation Convergence Accelerator Grant this month. The $1 Million grant will be used to advance Northwestern's AI-Powered data platform which interfaces with the federal PACER system. The Northwestern Open Access to Court Records Initiative (NOACRI) Team includes lawyers, journalists, economists, and policy makers across the different schools at Northwestern, and they are working to create tools needed to make the data locked in PACER available, and then link that data to public information about the litigants, judges, lawyers, and the courts. We wish them luck!! Can Congress Regulate Algorithms used in judicial processes? California Representative, Mark Takano has introduced the “Justice in Forensic Algorithms Act of 2019.” The idea is to create a standards for these algorithms that make them more transparent, especially to the defense teams, not just for the results, but for the entire process. Algorithms used in the courts will also not be able to hide behind trade secrets to prevent those affected by the algorithms from understanding how these results were produced. Can the government actually pull this off? It'll be interesting to see how this progresses. Plus, a bonus inspiration on what law firms should be doing to encourage 1L's and 2L's to learn more about technology while still at the law schools. Listen, Subscribe, Comment Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. We'd love to hear any ideas you'd like us to cover in future episodes. Also, subscribe, rate, and comment on The Geek In Review on your favorite podcast platform. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca, thanks Jerry!

In this episode, Dr. Daniela Simone, Lecturer in Law and Co-Director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at University College London Faculty of Laws, discusses her book "Copyright and Collective Authorship: Locating the Authors of Collaborative Work," which is published by Cambridge University Press. Simone begins by explaining what copyright protects and why. She discusses how copyright doctrine currently assigns authorship and ownership of works created by multiple people. She reflects on several particular forms of collective works to show how copyright doctrine provides "wrong" answers to the question of authorship, including Wikipedia, aboriginal Australian art, scientific articles, and motion pictures. And she explains how copyright could provide better answers by considering social norms and context when assigning authorship. Simone is on Twitter at @DrDSimone.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Hugh sits down with Sir Robin Jacob, the Hugh Laddie Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at University College London. Prior to UCL, Sir Robin served as a judge for the High Court (Chancery Division) and the Court of Appeals for a total of 18 years. Before that he was a barrister and “took silk” at the Intellectual Property Bar for 28 years. Being a “born litigator,” Sir Robin talks about his life as a barrister including how he became one and what his typical work week looked like. Sir Robin left the Court of Appeal at age 70. He looks back on his life as a judge and a jurist’s perspective on IP litigation. He also discusses his current academic and arbitrator/mediator experience. Hugh and Sir Robin discuss IP in different parts of the world, and it might surprise some to learn which country Sir Robin names as having “the poorest litigation system in the world.” This discussion includes differing views on the value of a jury system and also what the future might hold for IP in general. Sir Robin had been crucial in the creation of the idea and early discussion of a Unified Patent Court. It has had an interesting, if difficult incubation period. The EU Commission took over control and then abandoned it. It was revived by one bold Commission Head of Unit. Then came Brexit. Where is it now? Sir Robin discusses whether in his view it will at last become an important component of European patent law.

Jeanne Fromer, a Professor of Law with a specialty in IP at New York University School of Law and Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy in New York, raises many thought-provoking questions about trademark law, technology, and society as a whole in this compelling interview. She gives us keys to better understand how artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies challenge our perspective on traditional legal concepts in today’s fast-changing world.Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Brand & New gives the floor to inspiring individuals, with 360-degree vision, to help brand owners, intellectual property lawyers, and marketing and finance professionals (and beyond!) stay curious and agile in an ever-evolving business environment.Brand & New is a production of the International Trademark AssociationHosted by Audrey DauvetContribution of M. Halle & S. Lagedamond - Music by JD BeatsFOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT https://www.inta.org To go further:About Professor Jeanne Fromerhttps://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=27961 About this episodehttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3183294https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3121030https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/2328https://www.inta.org/PDF%20Library/2017DailyNews_Day4.pdfhttps://www.inta.org/Programs/Pages/2019NewYork_Overview.aspxSee also The Trademark Reporter, the Law Journal of the INTA: http://inta.org/TMR/Pages/current_issue.aspx (current issue) and http://inta.org/TMR/Pages/TMRArchive.aspx (archives)

When tobacco company Philip Morris sued Australia over our plain packaging laws, it's fair to say we were taken by surprise. How can a foreign company take a nation's government to tribunal for protecting its citizens health? The answer is Investor State Dispute Settlement, an obscure clause in free trade agreements allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for what it perceives be unfair discrimination. In practice, this tends to end up happening over regulations in two area: health and the environment. This episode unpacks how ISDS could put a stranglehold on regulations and policies that put people ahead of profit. Producer/Presenter: Cheyne Anderson. Featuring:Dr Patricia Ranald - Convenor of Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network.Dr Carl Rhodes - Professor of Organisational Studies at the University of Technology Sydney. Matthew Rimmer - Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology. Max Bonnell - Partner, White and Case.

When tobacco company Philip Morris sued Australia over our plain packaging laws, it's fair to say we were taken by surprise. How can a foreign company take a nation's government to tribunal for protecting its citizens health?The answer is Investor State Dispute Settlement, an obscure clause in free trade agreements allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for what it perceives to be unfair discrimination. In practice, this tends to end up happening over regulations in two areas: health, and the environment.This episode unpacks how ISDS could put a stranglehold on regulations and policies that put people ahead of profit.Producer/Presenter:Cheyne AndersonSpeakers:Dr Patricia Ranald, Convener of Australian Fair Trade and Investment NetworkDr Carl Rhodes, Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Technology SydneyMatthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of TechnologyMax Bonnell, Partner White & Case

Nick Thieme (@FurrierTranform) is a research fellow at University of California Hastings Institute for Innovation Law and freelance writer for a variety of outlets. Currently, his work focuses on AI regulation, cybersecurity, and pharmaceutical patent trolling. His writing has appeared in Slate Magazine, BuzzFeed News, and Significance Magazine. He was the 2017 AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Slate Magazine, writing about technology, science, and statistics. In particular, he wrote about the role of p-values in the replication crisis, the overblown, existential fear caused by the dangers of AI, and the NotPetya cyberattacks in Ukraine. He is also part of an ASA team currently in the process of helping found a new blog, aimed at undergraduates, practicing statisticians, and the general public.

Nick Thieme (@FurrierTranform) is a research fellow at University of California Hastings Institute for Innovation Law and freelance writer for a variety of outlets. Currently, his work focuses on AI regulation, cybersecurity, and pharmaceutical patent trolling. His writing has appeared in Slate Magazine, BuzzFeed News, and Significance Magazine. He was the 2017 AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Slate Magazine, writing about technology, science, and statistics. In particular, he wrote about the role of p-values in the replication crisis, the overblown,existential fear caused by the dangers of AI, and the NotPetya cyberattacks in Ukraine. He is also part of an ASA team currently in the process of helping found a new blog, aimed at undergraduates, practicing statisticians, and the general public.

Robin Feldman, director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Robin Feldman, director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Robin Feldman, Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the center for medicine and law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Robin Feldman, Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the center for medicine and law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Episode #007 Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote, 2007 Good to Great by Jim Collins Great by Choice by Jim Collins The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom Shoe Dog by Phil Knight The 5-Minute Journal by Intelligent Change

Mark Bourrie, author of "Killing the Messenger: Harper's War On Your Right To Know" joins us for the first segment to talk about the way this government has attempted to shut out independent investigation and review of it's actions, it's war on science and information as well as it's attempt to control the media. Up next is Dr. Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Dr Rimmer gives us a very important review of what we do, and do not know about the supposedly already done "trade" deal called the TPP. There's a lot of scary rumours out there about this secret deal, and Dr. Rimmer sets us straight. *MUST HEAR INTERVIEW* We also discuss a wide range of news items, and you can vote for which ones you want us to come back to for an interview or a more in depth look at our website each week! www.greenmajority.ca/vote_4_the_news This is a brief! For full listings and more info about this episode with links etc visit: https://greenmajoritymedia.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/472-death-of-democracy/ Please consider supporting us! - We are 100% Patreon member funded: www.patreon.com/greenmajority

Dr Matthew Rimmer, a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law, takes on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. He describes this Bill and the associated report as 'love letters to Foxtel and News Corp' and criticises the Bill for serving corporate interests, as well as pointing out the worrying implications it has for online freedom. Be sure to follow Dr Matthew Rimmer on Twitter @DrRimmer: https://twitter.com/DrRimmer Find out more about these proposed laws here: http://mashable.com/2015/06/11/senate-piracy-websites-australia/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_cid=Mash-Prod-RSS-Feedburner-All-Partial&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner Email Labor politicians to encourage them to oppose the Bill: http://choice.good.do/nofilter/email-your-labor-mp/ A shortened version of this interview was played on the 15th of June 2015 episode of RTR92.1FM Indymedia. You can listen to this episode at this link (just select 1st June episode on the little calendar on the left): rtrfm.com.au/shows/indymedia/

- Dr Matthew Rimmer, a Professor in Intellectual Property and Innovation Law, takes on the Copyright Amendment Online Infringement Bill 2015. - This proposed Bill has support from both the government and the opposition Labor party and it has troubling implications for civil liberties and online freedom. - The new Australian sketch show Open Slather. - Sell or give away stuff you are no longer using for the environment and human rights. - For more information on this episode and for links to all of the stories and clips from it, go to: http://progressivepodcastaustralia.com/2015/06/16/102/

The biopharmaceutical industry has long been considered immune to the threat of patent trolls, patent holders who seek to monetize the value of a patent through enforcement rather than productive use. But a paper by UC Hastings Robin Feldman and Harvard Fellow Nicholson Price argues that the biopharmaceutical industry should be worried and that steps should be taken now to counter the threat before it blossoms into an industrywide problem. We spoke to Feldman, professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at the UC Hastings College of Law about the study, why the biopharmaceutical industry should be concerned, and what steps can be taken to deter abusive behavior while protecting innovation.