Trust: A Model for Disclosure in Patent Law

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Indiana Law Journal Pub Date : 2015-10-29 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2634573
A. Waldman
{"title":"Trust: A Model for Disclosure in Patent Law","authors":"A. Waldman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2634573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to draw the line between public and private is a foundational, first-principles question of privacy law, but the answer has implications for intellectual property, as well. This project is the first in a series of papers about first-person disclosures of information in the privacy and intellectual property law contexts, and it defines the boundary between public and non-public information through the lens of social science — namely, principles of trust. Patent law’s “public use” bar confronts the question of whether legal protection should extend to information previously disclosed to a small group of people. I present evidence that shows that current application of the public use bar appears to privilege the confidentiality and control norms of industry while minimizing those no less strong norms common to lone entrepreneurs. This results in a general pattern: corporate inventors tend to whin their public use cases; solo entrepreneurs tend to lose them. As a result, the public use bar has unintended negative effects, including discouraging experimentation and discriminating against inventors without the financial backing of corporate employers. This project proposes a new way of talking about, thinking through, and determining when previous disclosures bar subsequent patentability. In short, I argue that patent disclosures in contexts of trust retain their legal protection despite any ostensible loss of control or lack of formal confidentiality agreements. This proposal respects social network differences and will advance the goals of patent law and increase access to the innovation economy for all persons.","PeriodicalId":46974,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Law Journal","volume":"87 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2634573","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

How to draw the line between public and private is a foundational, first-principles question of privacy law, but the answer has implications for intellectual property, as well. This project is the first in a series of papers about first-person disclosures of information in the privacy and intellectual property law contexts, and it defines the boundary between public and non-public information through the lens of social science — namely, principles of trust. Patent law’s “public use” bar confronts the question of whether legal protection should extend to information previously disclosed to a small group of people. I present evidence that shows that current application of the public use bar appears to privilege the confidentiality and control norms of industry while minimizing those no less strong norms common to lone entrepreneurs. This results in a general pattern: corporate inventors tend to whin their public use cases; solo entrepreneurs tend to lose them. As a result, the public use bar has unintended negative effects, including discouraging experimentation and discriminating against inventors without the financial backing of corporate employers. This project proposes a new way of talking about, thinking through, and determining when previous disclosures bar subsequent patentability. In short, I argue that patent disclosures in contexts of trust retain their legal protection despite any ostensible loss of control or lack of formal confidentiality agreements. This proposal respects social network differences and will advance the goals of patent law and increase access to the innovation economy for all persons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信任:专利法披露的一种模式
如何在公共和私人之间划清界限是隐私法的一个基本原则问题,但这个问题的答案对知识产权也有影响。本项目是关于隐私和知识产权法背景下第一人称信息披露的系列论文中的第一篇,它通过社会科学的视角——即信任原则——定义了公共信息和非公共信息之间的界限。专利法的“公共使用”限制面临的问题是,法律保护是否应该延伸到以前向一小部分人披露的信息。我提出的证据表明,目前公共使用禁令的应用似乎对行业的保密和控制规范给予了特权,同时最小化了那些对单独的企业家来说同样强大的规范。这导致了一种普遍的模式:企业的发明者倾向于抱怨他们的公共用例;独自创业的人往往会失去他们。因此,公共使用禁令产生了意想不到的负面影响,包括阻碍实验,歧视没有企业雇主资金支持的发明者。本项目提出了一种讨论、思考和确定先前的披露何时阻碍后续可专利性的新方法。简而言之,我认为,在信任的背景下,专利披露保留其法律保护,尽管任何表面上的控制丧失或缺乏正式的保密协议。该提案尊重社会网络差异,并将推进专利法的目标,增加所有人进入创新经济的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1925, the Indiana Law Journal is a general-interest academic legal journal. The Indiana Law Journal is published quarterly by students of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law — Bloomington. The opportunity to become a member of the Journal is available to all students at the end of their first-year. Members are selected in one of two ways. First, students in the top of their class academically are automatically invited to become members. Second, a blind-graded writing competition is held to fill the remaining slots. This competition tests students" Bluebook skills and legal writing ability. Overall, approximately thirty-five offers are extended each year. Candidates who accept their offers make a two-year commitment to the Journal.
期刊最新文献
Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation Leave Bad Enough Alone A Dangerous Concoction: Pharmaceutical Marketing, Cognitive Biases, and First Amendment Overprotection Hands on the Wheel: A Call for Greater Regulation of Semi-Autonomous Cars The Fragile Menagerie: Biodiversity Loss, Climate Change, and the Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1