Pamela Samuelson

Bio: Pamela Samuelson is an academic researcher from University of California, Berkeley. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intellectual property & Fair use. The author has an hindex of 30, co-authored 286 publications receiving 4307 citations. Previous affiliations of Pamela Samuelson include Boston College & Emory University.

High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey

Abstract: We offer description and analysis of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, summarizing the responses of 1,332 U.S.-based technology startups in the biotechnology, medical device, IT hardware, software, and Internet sectors. We discover that holding patents is more widespread among technology startups than has been previously reported, but that the patterns and drivers of holding patents are industry and context specific. Surprisingly, startup executives report in general that patents are providing relatively weak incentives for core activities in the innovation process. Our analysis uncovers that the drivers of startup patenting are often associated with capturing competitive advantage, and the associated goals of preventing technology copying, securing financing, and enhancing reputation - although again these and other motives depend on firm and industry factors. We also find substantial differences in the roles played by patents for startups in the biotechnology and medical device sectors - where patents are more commonly used and considered important - as compared to those operating in the software and Internet fields - where they are less useful. Interestingly, venture-backed IT hardware startups tend to resemble those in health-related fields in terms of their use of and motives for patenting. We generally find a wide disparity between the patenting behavior of venture-backed technology startups and those that are not funded with venture capital. We also discover that, when choosing not to patent major innovations, startups often cite to cost considerations, although again the motives to forgo patenting differ according to firm and industry characteristics. The respondents to our survey also generally report that checking the patent literature and licensing patents from others is reasonably common, although there too results differ according to the context. Other findings are discussed.

The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering

Abstract: II. REVERSE ENGINEERING IN TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING INDU STRIES ..................................................................................... 1582 A. A Legal Perspective on Reverse Engineering .......................... 1582 B. An Economic Perspective on Reverse Engineering ................. 1585 C. Anti-Plug-Mold Laws: An Exception to Reverse Engineering Rules? .................................................................. 1591

Privacy as Intellectual Property

Abstract: Some economists and privacy advocates have proposed giving individuals property rights in their personal data to promote information privacy in cyberspace. A property rights approach would allow individuals to negotiate with firms about the uses to which they are willing to have personal data put and would force businesses to internalize a higher proportion of the societal costs of personal data processing. However, granting individuals property rights in personal information is unlikely to achieve information privacy goals in part because a key mechanism of property law, namely, the general policy favoring free alienability of such rights, would more likely defeat than achieve information privacy goals. Drawing upon certain concepts from the unfair competition-based law of trade secrecy, this article suggests that information privacy law needs to impose minimum standards of commercial morality on firms engaged in the processing of personal data and proposes that certain default licensing rules of trade secrecy law may be adapted to protect personal information in cyberspace.

High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey

Abstract: We offer description and analysis of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, summarizing the responses of 1,332 U.S.-based technology startups in the biotechnology, medical device, IT hardware, software, and Internet sectors. We discover that holding patents is more widespread among technology startups than has been previously reported, but that the patterns and drivers of holding patents are industry and context specific. Surprisingly, startup executives report in general that patents are providing relatively weak incentives for core activities in the innovation process. Our analysis uncovers that the drivers of startup patenting are often associated with capturing competitive advantage, and the associated goals of preventing technology copying, securing financing, and enhancing reputation - although again these and other motives depend on firm and industry factors. We also find substantial differences in the roles played by patents for startups in the biotechnology and medical device sectors - where patents are more commonly used and considered important - as compared to those operating in the software and Internet fields - where they are less useful. Interestingly, venture-backed IT hardware startups tend to resemble those in health-related fields in terms of their use of and motives for patenting. We generally find a wide disparity between the patenting behavior of venture-backed technology startups and those that are not funded with venture capital. We also discover that, when choosing not to patent major innovations, startups often cite to cost considerations, although again the motives to forgo patenting differ according to firm and industry characteristics. The respondents to our survey also generally report that checking the patent literature and licensing patents from others is reasonably common, although there too results differ according to the context. Other findings are discussed.

Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised

Abstract: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA") prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners to control access to their works It also bans devices whose primary purpose is to enable circumvention of technical protection systems The Clinton administration proposed these anti-circumvention rules as implementations of US obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty However, the DMCA's provisions are significantly broader than the treaty required They violate the Administration's stated goal of only imposing "predictable, minimalist, consistent, and simple" regulations on the budding digital economy Although Congress heeded some concerns of digital economy firms by crafting certain exceptions to authorize legitimate circumvention, those exceptions are overly narrow and shortsighted They should be supplemented by a more general "other legitimate purposes" exception The DMCA's anti-device provisions are, moreover, overbroad and unclear, especially on the question whether it is legal to develop a technology necessary to engage in a privileged act of circumvention (eg, a fair use) Either Congress or the courts will be forced to constrain the reach of the anti-device rules so as not to undermine Congressional intent to preserve fair uses and so as not to harm competition and innovation in the information technology sector Finally, though the DMCA provides © 1999 Pamela Samuelson t Professor of Information Management and of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology This paper is an outgrowth of work initially done for an Emory Law School conference on the law of cyberspace held in February 1996 The draft article produced for that conference entitled Technical Protection for Copyrighted Works discussed a 1995 legislative proposal for regulating the circumvention of technical protection systems I am deeply indebted to Benjamin Black who was my research assistant during preparation of this draft He subsequently collaborated with me on a derivative work of that paper Although that project was never completed, this article builds on the base of that collaboration I am also grateful for comments on this draft from Hal Abelson, Jonathan Band, Yochai Benkler, Julie Cohen, Gideon Frieder, Joan Feigenbaum, Bob Glushko, Peter Huang, Laurel Jamtgaard, and Kurt Opsahl HeinOnline -14 Berkeley Tech LJ 519 1999 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL for a study of one class of potentially harmful impacts of the anticircumvention rules, this study needs to be broadened to consider the full impact of this unprecedented legislation

Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems

Abstract: Gigantically comprehensive and carefully researched, Security Engineering makes it clear just how difficult it is to protect information systems from corruption, eavesdropping, unauthorized use, and general malice. Better, Ross Anderson offers a lot of thoughts on how information can be made more secure (though probably not absolutely secure, at least not forever) with the help of both technologies and management strategies. His work makes fascinating reading and will no doubt inspire considerable doubt--fear is probably a better choice of words--in anyone with information to gather, protect, or make decisions about. Be aware: This is absolutely not a book solely about computers, with yet another explanation of Alice and Bob and how they exchange public keys in order to exchange messages in secret. Anderson explores, for example, the ingenious ways in which European truck drivers defeat their vehicles' speed-logging equipment. In another section, he shows how the end of the cold war brought on a decline in defenses against radio-frequency monitoring (radio frequencies can be used to determine, at a distance, what's going on in systems--bank teller machines, say), and how similar technology can be used to reverse-engineer the calculations that go on inside smart cards. In almost 600 pages of riveting detail, Anderson warns us not to be seduced by the latest defensive technologies, never to underestimate human ingenuity, and always use common sense in defending valuables. A terrific read for security professionals and general readers alike. --David Wall Topics covered: How some people go about protecting valuable things (particularly, but not exclusively, information) and how other people go about getting it anyway. Mostly, this takes the form of essays (about, for example, how the U.S. Air Force keeps its nukes out of the wrong hands) and stories (one of which tells of an art thief who defeated the latest technology by hiding in a closet). Sections deal with technologies, policies, psychology, and legal matters.

Information Hiding Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking

Abstract: From the Publisher: Steganography, a means by which two or more parties may communicate using "invisible" or "subliminal" communication, and watermarking, a means of hiding copyright data in images, are becoming necessary components of commercial multimedia applications that are subject to illegal use. This new book is the first comprehensive survey of steganography and watermarking and their application to modern communications and multimedia. Handbook of Information Hiding: Steganography and Watermarking helps you understand steganography, the history of this previously neglected element of cryptography, the hurdles of international law on strong cryptographic techniques, a description of possible applications, and a survey of the methods you can use to hide information in modern media. Included in this discussion is an overview of "steganalysis," methods which can be used to break steganographic communication. This comprehensive resource also includes an introduction to and survey of watermarking methods, and discusses this method's similarities and differences to steganography. You gain a working knowledge of watermarking's pros and cons, and you learn the legal implications of watermarking and copyright issues on the Internet.

System for controlling access and distribution of digital property

Abstract: A method and device are provided for controlling access to data. Portions of the data are protected and rules concerning access rights to the data are determined. Access to the protected portions of the data is prevented, other than in a non-useable form; and users are provided access to the data only in accordance with the rules as enforced by a mechanism protected by tamper detection. A method is also provided for distributing data for subsequent controlled use of those data. The method includes protecting portions of the data; preventing access to the protected portions of the data other than in a non-useable form; determining rules concerning access rights to the data; protecting the rules; and providing a package including: the protected portions of the data and the protected rules. A user is provided controlled access to the distributed data only in accordance with the rules as enforced by a mechanism protected by tamper protection. A device is provided for controlling access to data having protected data portions and rules concerning access rights to the data. The device includes means for storing the rules; and means for accessing the protected data portions only in accordance with the rules, whereby user access to the protected data portions is permitted only if the rules indicate that the user is allowed to access the portions of the data.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

System for controlling the distribution and use of digital works

Abstract: A system for controlling use and distribution of digital works, in which the owner of a digital work (101) attaches usage rights (102) to that work. Usage rights are granted by the "owner" of a digital work to "buyers" of the digital work. The usage rights define how a digital work may be used and further distributed by the buyer. Each right has associated with it certain optional specifications which outline the conditions and fees upon which the right may be exercised. Digital works are stored in a repository. A repository will process each request (103,104) to access a digital work by examining the corresponding usage rights (105). Digital work playback devices, coupled to the repository containing the work, are used to play, display or print the work. Access to digital works for the purposes of transporting between repositories (e.g. copying, borrowing or transfer) is carried out using a digital work transport protocol. Access to digital works for the purposes of replay by a digital work playback device(e.g. printing, displaying or executing) is carried out using a digital work playback protocol. Access is denied (106) or granted (107) depending whether the requesting repository has the required usage rights.