Vol. 11 (2015)
Click link to view PDF
Emmy Latifah, Access to Genetics Resources in Indonesia: Need Further Legislation?, 11 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 79 (2015)
“The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992, provides that the states have the right to control the access to their genetic resources and thus the power to set conditions relating to research, developments of uses and sharing of benefits. When the convention is implemented in member countries, the key issue for national implementation is achieving a balance between controlling access to genetic resources and facilitating it. If the legislation of a provider country is too cumbersome, genetic resources will not be sought and there will be no opportunity to get benefit. Such a situation could also lead to potential conflicts between the objectives of CBD and the protection of intellectual property rights. This article discusses issues arising from protection of genetic resources while facilitating access to it by examining Indonesia’s National System of Research, Development and Application of Science and Technology Research. In doing so, this article examines the problems that Indonesia faces with procedures established to enable access and advocates how the situation could be improved without reducing the provider states’ control of access.”
Qadir Qeidary, Emerging Issues: New Uses, Whether Threat or Chance, What Is the Current and Appropriate Legal Treatment?, 11 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 78 (2015)
“Legal status of the new detected uses for old patents as an independent invention is a problematic issue that gives rise to basic legal challenges regarding patent's promotion standards of protection, in particular the prolongation of the patent monopoly's term. International instruments, uncertainties, and a variety of treatments within different national and regional jurisdictions have increased the complexities of patentability of new uses. These uncertainties, especially in Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the most important covenant on commercial aspects of intellectual properties toward new uses, have resulted in dividing various jurisdictions into contradictory of both proponent and opponent positions. In this article, a comparative framework has been employed for analyzing these contradictory treatments, which are mainly founded on “being novel” and “lack of novelty” through a different sense, i.e. proving act of “creation” via fulfillment the constructive essentials of “process invention” based on patent law's principles. Within that context, we employ a framework has been designed for comparison at three levels: the international level (TRIPS), regional (European Patent Convention and Andean Union) and national level (Emphasizing on United States' law because of its most consistency with our sense). In this regard, we are trying to propose an exhaustive and prescriptive criterion that, while satisfying the essentials of customary patent law, meets the interests of both proponent and opponent parties. The criterion lies in adjusting the border of constitutional elements of the process based on desires and interests.”
“On June 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, that a research university compiling mass digital copies of copyrighted works to create a library database was fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. This unprecedented decision by the Second Circuit set the stage for how educational mass digitization would be treated in the future. Prior to this decision, courts had not addressed the issue of whether works as products of a digitization process were copyrightable since Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. . . . Since Bridgeman was decided in 1999, numerous scholars have argued that the case was wrongly decided. Some arguments are grounded in the understanding that not allowing copyright in the photographic reproductions of artworks by museums and institutions like Bridgeman, actually goes against copyright law’s ultimate mission of encouraging public viewing and consumption of artwork. Others stand for the proposition that the decision denies the amateur and professional museum photographer incentives to ply their craft by denying protection in a way that is fundamentally unfair. Regardless, the academic community has analyzed and in many cases criticized the holding of Bridgeman and its long-term effects on copyright law.”
Foster Dobry, Confusion Abounds Regarding Patent Eligibility Within the Biotechnology Community, 10 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 76 (2015)
“On October 6, 2014, oral arguments were made before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning patents claiming BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) primers. These arguments were made subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Involved in the case were patents held by Myriad which “cover[ed] compositions of matter and methods relating to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.” Myriad sued Ambry, claiming that Ambry had infringed their patents and seeking a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the injunction due to claim invalidity, holding that the claims were directed to ineligible subject matter and not patentable under 35 U.S.C §101. Myriad appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The question presented was whether Myriad’s claims were directed to §101 judicial exceptions, and therefore patent ineligible subject matter.”
"In hopes of attaining a sustainable, energy efficient earth, the United States federal and state governments have imposed environmental regulations, like the Clean Air Act, in order to attain this goal. The purpose of these environmental regulations is to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous pollutants. Historically, many utilities relied on portfolios that were less concerned about environmental concerns, but more about efficiency and the bottom line dollar. However, with the advancement of technology, America’s dedication to environmental sustainability has strengthened, ushering a change by many utilities in shifting their portfolios to comply with these various regulations. Under traditional utility regulation, the standard protocol of utilities has been to submit load forecast proposals to state utility regulating authorities for purposes of meeting the needs of gas or electric users during that forecasted period. Generally, these proposals were geared towards supply-side requirements (i.e., options to supply more power). However, as states begin trending towards sustainability and clean energy development, state utility regulators have begun urging utilities to incorporate demand-side requirements (i.e., options to reduce electricity demand)."
Aaron L. Jackson, The Sky Is Not Falling: An Analysis of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and the Proposed Identity Ecosystem, 10 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 74 (2015)
"Cyber experts have long envisioned a day when the multiple password-based systems used for identification and authorization of individuals on the internet would be replaced with a singular, online identity. That day may be coming soon. In 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the federal technology agency entrusted with development of industry standards, finalized the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). Dubbed a 'driver’s license' for the internet, this policy envisions the creation of an Identity Ecosystem where individuals may forego their multiple password-based online identities for one secure identity used 'for convenient, secure, and privacy-enhancing [internet] transactions anywhere, anytime.' Far beyond conceptual, two states and one federal agency have now begun the process of turning the NSTIC’s Identity Ecosystem into a reality."
Alex Campbell, The Legal Implications of Sony's Cyberhack, 11 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 73 (2015)
"This note will address two issues in regards to North Korea’s alleged response to Sony’s portrayal of Kim Jong-un in The Interview. First, did Jong-un have legal cause to sue the filmmakers for infringing on his right to publicity? Second, did North Korea violate international law for an illegal use of force (assuming North Korea was the perpetrator)?"