Saturday, November 14, 2009

"They're back!": patenting sports moves

Just when you thought law reviews were getting safe, the Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. Law Journal published : IT'S YOUR TURN, BUT IT'S MY MOVE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR SPORTS "MOVES" [25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 765 ]

The beginning "bio" reveals the "back to the 90's" flavor: At the time this article was written, F. Scott Kieff was an associate in the New York office of the law firm of Pennie & Edmonds, Robert G. Kramer was an associate in the firm's Washington DC office, and Robert M. Kunstadt was a partner in the firm's New York office. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of their former colleagues in the Pennie & Edmonds firm, especially former Senior Partner S. Leslie Misrock, whose wonderfully creative insight inspired playful efforts such as this article. Presently, Robert G. Kramer and Robert M. Kunstadt are practicing law in California and New York, respectively, and F. Scott Kieff is Professor at Washington University School of Law and School of Medicine Department of Neurosurgery and Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.

IPBiz had alluded to the "sports moves" business previously:

Patents on sport moves... reprised
[from 2005: Reprising Robert Kunstadt's efforts of the mid-1990s, attorney John Farmer writes about the possibility of patents on sport moves (...)}

Michael Crichton assails Metabolite case but ignores the academic connection


Do law review authors really care about changing the law?

Also, within the Santa Clara article:

Finally, the right to exclude others that is at the core of the patent right does not require that there be any exclusion. Many patentees choose to offer broad based non-exclusive licenses to anyone interested in paying a nominal fee. This licensing strategy is common in the biomedical community for basic inventions. For example, the Columbia University patents on transforming cells with foreign DNA n43 and the Stanford University patents on recombinant DNA n44 have been available for licensing by just about anyone and the fees are commensurate with the intended use: low for academic use and high for commercial use. n45 The universities that own these patents can use the revenues to fund new research. Similarly, a public spirited [p. 776] sports champion might offer a non-exclusive license at varying rates and donate the proceeds to a charity such as the U.S. Olympic Team.


They're back....


Post a Comment

<< Home