kljensen

I believe this is not the case. (Based on my somewhat sizeable experience in this area. See my other comment on this post.)

First, if the student is an undergraduate, it's unlikely they have "assigned" their IP to the university. The university does not own the fruits of the student's mind. (If you are a graduate student or employee, you probably did assignee your IP.)

Second, "inventor" is a specific, defined thing under US law. Naming inventors who do not meet this definition can render the patent invalid. And, on a more practical level, a dispute over the inventorship will scare off licensors, precluding any revenue the patent would have brought the university.

(I have two patents, work at an IP related non profit, and own a popular IP news service. I am not a lawyer. I suggest you contact Gene Quinn, advocate of independent inventors.)

If the author worked in a start up, he'd have written a more succinct article.

Here's a related graphic from the NYT that shows the history of investor-backed lawsuits: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/business/20101...

Sure, "priorsmart litigation alerts". Here is a review/description: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/08/patent-litigation-al...

This is destined to result in poor deliverability for them in perpetuity due to a step change in volume combined with spam complaints. I would not do this. (I run a profitable ad-suppoted daily email list.)

Purely financial -- how would two guys from Texas hire an attorney in California (where facebook would file) to represent them day after day without going broke? Now facebook has to send their guys to Texas...the cost which will add up quickly.

There aren't many documented cases like you describe.

The claims are not just on the sequences, but can be on uses of the sequences, combinations, whatever. This is why genes are be patented in some cases up to 25+ times. Each patent owner claimed something unique that passed the USPTO's tests for patentability.

Yes. That is basically the case.

In the eyes of the (US) law, independent invention is no excuse for infringement. The patent holder has an absolute right to exclude others from practicing the invention.

In other words, in the race to invent and patent, first place gets a big prize, second place is the first loser.

It is applied, and it should also be in the CS space. But, as always, there are bad patents issued because they are examined by busy humans. In these cases, opponents of the patent have a number of options, most notably asking for a reexamination of the patent. During reexam, you can bring missed prior art to the USPTO's attention in an effort to invalidate the patent.

EDIT: I should have also mentioned, another option is to ask the courts to invalidate the patent (for obviousness, lack of enablement, or any other statutory requirement) if you are involved in a lawsuit. Even if you are not sued you can begin such a lawsuit by filing a "declaratory judgement" complaint against somebody who you reasonably feel might sue you.

Gene patents have not been a "problem" in the same way as software patents. And, unlike software patents, they are more likely to represent a significant R&D investment by the applicant.

(I am the author of the paper that showed how much of the human genome is patented. "Intellectual property landscape of the human genome", Science 2005. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5746/239 )

The brief filed by the government does not alter the law, it's just a letter to the court that says "this is the current, consensus opinion of the executive branch." The current law states that DNA (or any other naturally occurring chemical) cannot be patented unless it is significantly transformed from it's natural state. However, purification of the DNA is usually enough to render it patentable. That, of course, is not difficult with current molecular biology techniques.

But, like any other technology, patent applications covering DNA must meet many other requirements including non-obviousness and usefulness. Thus, the claims granted by the USPTO have become increasingly narrow as the field has matured and there is more prior art. That is, just like any new technology area the initially granted patents are broad, but they narrow over time.

So, that is a long way of saying, this might be a tempest in a teapot. Especially because most court watchers expect the Federal Circuit to reverse the District Court and keep the status quo.

I see this a ton. (I work for an entrepreneurship and ip related non-profit and have done a few start ups.)

Usually a tech start-up thinks it can get Gates money by applying their shizzle to global poverty or a non-profit decides it wants to make some consulting money. Both are hair-brained ideas -- choose one, it's hard enough to be successful in one world.

Pipes is one of the best kept secrets on the web. It's great at quickly mashing up a few data sources and exposing it as a web service, with optional json/xml/kml/xxx output out of the box. Also it's totally cached so even expensive pipes run quickly after the first call.

I'd love to use this project in order to effortlessly migrate pipes to python once they get too complicated, require something pipes lacks, or become important to a business.

I am 110% locked into GAE with a start up in the legal services space. And I couldn't be happier. For needs that cannot be satisfied by GAE, our app spins EC2 instances up and down as required (from GAE).

For me, the numerous benefits of the platform outweigh the lock-in risk by a large margin.

How do you get on their schedule?

The tl;dr might be: sound like a human not a total douche.

I don't feel the credential based pitch can be replaced wholesale. Credentials matter and are effective because they communicate a great deal of information (often by assumption) in few words and also provide some social evidence. E.g. "Carl got his MBA at HBS." That instantly provides you with a (mostly positive) picture of Carl.

Aside: The best part of the article is the first comment.

Q: How do you know someone went to Harvard? A: They just told you.

I enjoyed scrolling to the bottom to listen to the different sounds the device can produce. The disclosed age/frequency pairs seem remarkably accurate and, of course, the sound is quite annoying.

Not that I've seen, but haven't done much research.

About 1,000 per week miss their fees. (In contrast 2k+ are granted each week.)

Are convertible notes new? Seemed common 10 years ago even.

The [guaranteed] stress and [potential] rewards are directly proportional to how much risk you're taking. The best time to join depends on your personal appetite and financial/family situation.

Really? I started using it almost on day one and feel like I had an unqualified positive experience. In particular, this was the first platform I used that freed me from the burdens is sys admin. (Obviously that is not unique to gae. Also, there are numerous other qualities I enjoy.)

What do you find lacking?

Appengine keeps getting better and better.

A Mint.com for managing your frequent flier miles instead of money. It alerts you to deals, expiring miles, and ties-in with the infinite affiliate programs for travel in order to generate revenue. (Credit to my mom on that idea.)

That is a patent application. It has not been granted.

Much more success in philippines than india for me. Used craigslist in both. In long term work relationship with two people in PI, both amazing. (Happy to offer more advice if needed.)

Ip is extremely important in numerous markets including biotechnology, clean tech, fashion, publishing, and many others.

Thanks Chris. (I'm running a brand new niche email newsletter for patent attorneys and would enjoy chatting if you have the time. My email is in my profile.)