According to Igor Drozdov, the board chairman of the Skolkovo Foundation, who spoke at Russia's SPIEF economic forum this year, new technologies will allow more people "to earn real money using intellectual property institutions."
He also talked about tech that would be developed in order to protect IP, describing projects similar to what Microsoft is currently working on.
"Currently, works of authorship are analyzed by humans, but as artificial intelligence technologies become more and more sophisticated, they can at one point analyze texts just like humans, making AI expert evaluation possible."
Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts
Friday, 2 June 2017
Thursday, 1 June 2017
Lexmark Sued a Company That Let Buyers Refill Their Ink Cartridges ... and Lost
The Supreme court in a 7-1 decision found that consumers can do what they want with the printers they buy, despite Lexmark forcing buyers to "sign" a "post-sale restriction" contract that the buyer won't tamper with their patented product after they buy it.
The case is "Impression v Lexmark."
Lexmark makes two similar types of printers: the cheaper one comes with ink cartridges that have a chip on them that prevents users from refilling them and putting them back in the printer, so the user has to go buy a new one from a store. Impression removes the chip so users can refill their cartridges.
Lexmark sued, saying that infringes on their property rights (which they said they maintained post-sale) that prevented third parties from modifying or repairing their products.
The court reasoned that if companies could maintain property rights preventing modification and repair after a product was sold, pretty much every repair shop in the country could be sued, the "smooth flow of commerce" would be impaired, and all parties involved would end up harmed.
The case is "Impression v Lexmark."
Lexmark makes two similar types of printers: the cheaper one comes with ink cartridges that have a chip on them that prevents users from refilling them and putting them back in the printer, so the user has to go buy a new one from a store. Impression removes the chip so users can refill their cartridges.
Lexmark sued, saying that infringes on their property rights (which they said they maintained post-sale) that prevented third parties from modifying or repairing their products.
The court reasoned that if companies could maintain property rights preventing modification and repair after a product was sold, pretty much every repair shop in the country could be sued, the "smooth flow of commerce" would be impaired, and all parties involved would end up harmed.
Read more about:
Business,
Consumer Law,
Economy,
Impression v Landmark,
Intellectual Property,
IP,
Law,
Property Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Facebook Bans White Nationalist's Account Over Hate Speech
Facebook has joined other online platforms and has banned Christopher Cantwell's accounts. according to Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Bud...