The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Black Lives Matter
- Boca Chica Texas
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Elon Musk
- Ethical Egoism
- Fake News
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Life Extension
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- National Vanguard
- New Utopia
- Online Casino
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Proud Boys
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: November 2, 2020
Chad C. Meek, Author, Futurist Has Just Released a Book Entitled The New Libertarian Party, Revolution for America – PRNewswire
Posted: November 2, 2020 at 1:58 pm
SAN DIEGO, Nov. 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- In his thought-provoking book, Meek points out how the 1% has co-opted the United States political system and government, which has marginalized the American People into a separate downtrodden serfdom class of citizens.
The 62-year-old futurist explains that a perfect storm has occurred that has completely adulterated every American Government Institution that includes the Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the Federal Reserve.
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policyAn equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy."
In his abstract, Meek offers solutions to put the power back in the American People's hands. A single financial transaction tax, citizen jurists, universal income, universal education, on-line voting, and reducing the national voting age to 16.
The New Libertarian Party's (N.L.P) platform, also called the Great American Consolidation, along with the rapid adoption of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence, will revolutionize how our government will operate within the next five years.
Meek states, "For Generations X, Y, Z, the traditional political parties offer zero solutions to a Fascist controlled government that has lost its mind and moral compass.
He further adds, "Nothing will change with the current antiquated infrastructure other than the rich getting richer."
The N.L.P genesis began at a place called Giant Rock, located in the Mohave Desert. Chad C. Meek lived here during this discovery time and witnessed the thousands of people who attended the annual space convention over three decades.
Meek's first novel and a screenplay called Giant Rock were released in 2016 and profiled his family's and others' experiences who made direct contact with extraterrestrial entities.
The people of Giant Rock created a movement led by his uncle George Van Tassel circa 1910-1978, which promoted Peace, U.F.O. disclosure, free-energy, and a non-nuclear carbon-free world.
"The ideas that my uncle and the eclectic group out at Giant Rock were able to channel from the Universal Mind were 50 years before their time."
Books available on Amazon
Media Contact:Chad Meek[emailprotected]805-308-1949
SOURCE Chad C. Meek
Posted: at 1:58 pm
We just got our first look at an upcoming COVID movie called Songbird, produced by the one and only Michael Bay and its a doozy.
The film examines the current disaster that is 2020, and contemplates what it would be like to live under quarantine for another few years until the year 2024, when the movie is set. Is this what four more years could do to America?
The trailer paints a gloomy picture of the near future. Basically, it sounds like the dystopian timeline that nobody wants to think about right now.
Heres the premise. The number of deaths has risen to 110 million, caused by a mutated COVID-23 virus with a high mortality rate.
Yes, dear reader, this is a movie the industry wants us to actually watch.
Filmmakers Simon Boyes and Adam Mason wrote the outline for the story during lockdown this year, as Entertainment Weekly reports. Mason apparently called it a crazy idea when he pitched the idea to movie producer Adam Goodman.
Surprising nobody, there will be a love story at the center of the film.Its Romeo and Juliet, but theyre separated by her front door and by the virus, Mason told EW.
According to a press release, the protagonists of the story is an essential worker who has a rare immunity, played by teenage heartthrob KJ Apa, from Riverdale fame.
Production kicked off on July 8 in Los Angeles, the first film to be made in the city since March, according to EW. Strict safety measures made filming complicated, with crews being limited to 40 or less. It took only 17 days to complete shooting the film.
A major question remains: Whos this movie for?
This is how Sofia Carson, whos playing the love interest, pitches the movie, despite the fact that anxiety is at an all time high across much of the globe: Even though this is the pandemic thriller and its suspenseful and terrifying, the heart of a story is hope, she told EW.
READ MORE: Get your first look at pandemic thriller Songbird, starring KJ Apa [Entertainment Weekly]
Posted: at 1:58 pm
A new study takes the closest look yet at Psyche, an object in our solar systems asteroid belt thats thought to be the leftover core of a protoplanet that was destroyed before it could finish forming, possibly by an epic prehistoric collision that ripped off its outer layers.
In addition to taking clearer images of Psyches surface, the Southwest Research Institute study, published Monday in The Planetary Science Journal, is the first to observe the asteroid in ultraviolet, which revealed weathering effects due to being exposed in space for countless aeons. As NASA plans to launch a mission to Psyche in 2022, the new research could give the space agency a much better idea of what to expect once it arrives.
Psyche is one of the largest objects in the asteroid belt, orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. When they imaged it under UV light, the scientists found that Psyche has been gradually oxidizing thanks to solar winds.
Weve seen meteorites that are mostly metal, but Psyche could be unique in that it might be an asteroid that is totally made of iron and nickel, Southwest Research Institute scientist and study author Tracy Becker said in a press release. Earth has a metal core, a mantle and crust. Its possible that as a Psyche protoplanet was forming, it was struck by another object in our solar system and lost its mantle and crust.
If Psyche is the ghostly remains of a new planet, it would give NASA an unprecedented glimpse into whats happening beneath our feet on Earth.
What makes Psyche and the other asteroids so interesting is that theyre considered to be the building blocks of the solar system, Becker said. To understand what really makes up a planet and to potentially see the inside of a planet is fascinating.
READ MORE: Study offers more complete view of massive asteroid Psyche [Southwest Research Institute]
More on Psyche: NASA Hires SpaceX To Launch Mission To Giant Metal Asteroid
Posted: at 1:58 pm
Employees at the Silicon Valley security startup Verkada were reportedly using the companys own facial recognition-equipped security cameras to take pictures of women who worked at the company and make sexually explicit comments about them.
A sales director at Verkada, which sells security cameras and facial recognition software to companies, government agencies, and police departments, took a picture of a female colleague with one of the cameras the company uses in its own office, then posted it to the company Slack channel alongside sexually explicit comments, Motherboard reports. Other employees followed suit and did the same to other women at the company and all of them are still employed.
The incident and the months it took to disclose it to the company, according to a full account of the events from IPVM shows the clash of several toxic Silicon Valley trends. At Verkada, multiple employees told Motherboard about a pervasive misogynistic, fraternity-like workplace culture thats now in spotlight for illustrating how emerging tech can be used to exploit and abuse others.
I think its 100 percent fair to say I left Verkada because of the culture, a former employee told Motherboard. The worst part of it was that it seemed like the men in this crew continued to be celebrated and remained in leadership positions. Thats how [management] has made the toxic culture theyve created okay.
The four men responsible for the sexual harassment all kept their jobs but lost some of their stock options, Motherboard reports. To women at the company and those affected by the harassment, attempts to improve workplace culture fell short.
Everyone wants to stay there for the potential money they could make, but especially for women its hard to stay there, another former employee told Motherboard. Theres no support. They dont care about you.
READ MORE: Surveillance Startup Used Own Cameras to Harass Coworkers [Motherboard]
More on work culture: The Tech Industrys Gender Problem Isnt Just Hurting Women
Go here to read the rest:
Men at Facial Recognition Startup Used Its Own Tech to Sexually Harass Coworkers - Futurism
Posted: at 1:58 pm
Coming soon: carbon-negative diamonds made from nothing but atmospheric CO2 and rainwater.
A British clean energy company called Ecotricity, founded by environmentalist Dale Vince, told The Guardian that it plans to clean up the diamond industry, which has devastating effects on the environment and has a whole lot of blood on its hands. The plan, Vince says, is to suck greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere and use it to create a more ethical version of the gemstone.
To get just one carat 0.2 grams of a traditional diamond, according to The Guardian, miners could excavate up to 2.2 million pounds of rock, use 1,028 gallons of water, and emit 238 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, The Guardian reports.
Ecotricity hopes to reverse that environmental destruction by taking carbon out of the atmosphere, producing methane a crucial ingredient in synthesizing diamonds by taking hydrogen molecules out of rainwater, and powering the whole operation with wind and solar energy.
The resulting diamond is identical to one pulled out of the ground and Vince says Ecotricity is already capable of making about 200 carats every month.
Making diamonds from nothing more than the sky, from the air we breathe is a magical, evocative idea its modern alchemy, Vince told The Guardian. We dont need to mine the earth to have diamonds, we can mine the sky.
READ MORE: Ecotricity founder to grow diamonds made entirely from the sky [The Guardian]
More on diamonds: Diamond Batteries Made of Nuclear Waste Can Generate Power For Thousands of Years
The rest is here:
This Guy Is Creating Actual Diamonds From Reclaimed CO2 - Futurism
Posted: at 1:58 pm
In 48 years, an asteroid named after the Egyptian God of Chaos Apophis might hit the Earth.
Apophis will pass particularly close to the Earth in 2068, Popular Mechanics reports. And because its orbit is drifting little by little, theres a chance that it actually hits us. The odds of that happening are fairly low but the risk, scientists say, is real.
Even before then, Apophis will swing by for a visit. In 2029, it will even pass between the Earth and a network of satellites, at which point well be able to see it with our naked eyes, PopMech reports.
The University of Hawaii astronomers who couldnt rule out the 2068 impact say that the 2029 transit will definitely be harmless, though. Their work, which was presented at a 2020 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, has been tracking the changing orbit of Apophis since it was discovered in 2004.
Again, the odds that Apophis actually poses a threat to us are slim the probability is low, but the consequences would be catastrophic. Still, space agencies are preparing, according to PopMech. NASA and SpaceX are launching the DART mission, which will serve as a practice round for the plan to deflect potentially killer asteroids.
Russian scientists have also said theyre developing a nuclear missile they intend to shoot at Apophis so at the very least, the space rock wont catch us off guard.
READ MORE: A God of Chaos Asteroid Could Hit Earth in 2068 [Popular Mechanics]
More on asteroids: This Awful Tabloid Predicts a Killer Asteroid Almost Every Day
Continue reading here:
There's a Chance This Giant Asteroid Will Smash Earth in 2068 - Futurism
Posted: at 1:58 pm
In an important step toward the goal of hooking our brains up to machines, scientists have developed a brain-computer interface (BCI) system that interprets neural signals without coming into contact with the brain itself.
Typically, neural implants need to rest on top or inside the brain, which can harm and kill brain tissue in ways that scientists still dont yet fully understand. But a company called Synchron is taking a different approach: developing BCI systems that slither toward the brain through the jugular vein, circumventing the need for brain surgery altogether.
Now, Wired reports that the company has taken it a step further: Its newest BCI doesnt even need to extend all the way to the brain in order to pick up on what its saying.
The implant, which remains in the bodys vasculature near the brain, was able to pick up and interpret neural signals that heralded the intent to move a muscle. Two patients paralyzed from Lou Gehrigs disease who were implanted with the experimental device were able to use it to communicate and send text messages, according to research published in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery on Wednesday.
Self-expanding stent technology has been well demonstrated in both cardiac and neurological applications to treat other disease, neuroscientist and Synchron CEO Thomas Oxley told Wired. We just use that feature and put electrodes on top of the stent.
Its fully implantable, he added. Patients go home in a couple of days. And its plug-and-play.
Of course, its not quite that simple for the patients, who still need to spend weeks training the systems AI software to understand their neural signals once they get home. But once the system caught on to which brain impulses meant what, they were able to move a computer cursor around with an eye tracker and click their mouse just by thinking about it.
Theres a trade-off between how invasive you want to be and at what level you collect information, Andrew Pruszynski, a neuroscientist at Canadas Western University told Wired. This is trying to get to the middle ground, to insert a catheter close to the neural activity. Its obviously invasive, but certainly not as invasive as putting electrodes into the brain.
View original post here:
New Brain-Computer Interface Doesn't Even Need to Touch the Brain - Futurism
Review Of The 4th Amendment Of China’s Patent Law – Intellectual Property – China – Mondaq News Alerts
Posted: at 1:57 pm
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Twelve years from the third amendment of China's patent law,the fourth amendment was approved by the Standing Committee of theNational People's Congress on October 17, 2020. The newamendment will take effect on June 1, 2021. This article provides adetailed review of the changes from the current patent law.
The first aspect of changes relates to enhanced protection ofpatent rights. Specifically, it includes punitive damages,increased statutory damage, reversed burden of proof, increasedfine for passingoff, and extended time limit for initiatinglitigation.
(1) Punitive Damages and Increased StatutoryDamage
Under the current patent law, the concepts of willfulinfringement and associated punitive damages are not available.These are included in Article 71 of the fourth amendment of thepatent law. Specifically, for willful infringement on a patentright, if the circumstance is serious, the amount of damages may beincreased up to five times of the calculated damages. The amount ofdamages for patent right infringement shall be determined by tryingthe following methods in the following order. First, the amount ofdamages may be determined according to the patentee's actuallosses caused by the infringement or the benefits acquired by theinfringer through the infringement. Where it is difficult todetermine the losses of the patentee or the benefits acquired bythe infringer, the amount of damages may be determined according tothe reasonably multiples of the royalties of that patent. It is tobe noted that compared with the current provisions, Article 71slightly revised the order of the methods for calculating damagesthat should be used. Either the patentee's actual losses or thebenefits acquired by the infringer can be used first, whereas thecurrent law requires that the actual losses must be triedfirst.
If it is difficult to determine the losses of the patentee,benefits of the infringer, or royalties of the patent, thepeople's court may, on the basis of the factors such as thetype of patent right, nature of the infringement, and seriousnessof the case, determine the amount of compensation within the rangefrom RMB30,000 to RMB5,000,000 (US$4,500 to US$750,000). Thisis referred to as statutory damage and it's lower and upperlimits are respectively raised to 3 times and 5 times of thecurrent ones.
(2) Reversed Burden of Proof
One of the biggest difficulties faced by a patent right holderin a patent infringement law suit in China is the lack ofdiscovery. It is often the case that infringement is found butthere is no good evidence to calculate damages as the evidence isin the possession of the defendant. To deal with this problem,Article 71 of the fourth amendment of the patent law provides wherethe right holder has tried his best to provide evidence but theaccount book and materials related to the infringement are mainlyin the possession of the infringer, in order to determine theamount of damages, the people's court may order the infringerto provide the account book and materials related to theinfringement acts.
Where the infringer fails to provide the account book ormaterials or provide fake account book or materials, thepeople's court may determine the amount of damages based on theclaim made and the evidence provided by the right holder. Itfollows that the plaintiff may want to claim high when launching aninfringement law suit. However, one factor that needs to beconsidered is that the court fees are related to the amount atstake. Even if China does not have a loserpay system, i.e.the losing party does not need to cover the cost of the winningparty in a law suit, overclaiming increases the risk ofhaving to pay higher court fees if the plaintiff does not win thecase.
The punitive damages and the increased statutory damages,together with the reversed burden of proof for calculating damagesare likely to significantly increase the amount of damages awardedin future patent infringement cases in China, which will creategreater deterrence to potential infringers.
(3) Increased Fine for PassingOff
Patent passingoff can be generally understood as fraud,such as false patent marking. Article 68 of the fourth amendmentprovides that when handling a patent passingoff case, apatent enforcement authority can confiscate the illegal gains ofthe party who passes off a patent and, in addition, impose a fineof not more than five times the illegal gain, which is increasedfrom the current limit of four times of the illegal gain. In casethere is no illegal gain or the illegal gain is less than RMB50,000(US$7,500), a patent enforcement authority may impose a fine of upto RMB250,000 (US$37,500). It is to be noted that the fine is atype of punishment on the party who passes off a patent but thepatent right holder will not gain any financial benefit from thefine. Of course, in addition to confiscation and fine, the partywho passes off a patent also has to bear civil liability, e.g.compensation to the patent right holder.
According to the current patent law, when a patent enforcementauthority investigates and handles the suspected passingoffof a patent, it may, based on evidence obtained, (1) inquire theparties concerned and investigate the circumstances related to thesuspected illegal act; (2) conduct onsite inspection of theplaces where the suspected illegal act is committed; (3) review andduplicate the relevant contracts, invoices, account books and otherrelated materials; (4) inspect the products related to thesuspected illegal act; and (5) seal or confiscate the productswhich pass off the patent.
In China, a patent right holder can enforce a patent rightthrough judicial route, i.e. people's court or administrativeroute, e.g. local IP offices. However, local IP offices' powerto review and duplicate the relevant contracts, invoices, accountbooks and other related materials and to seal or confiscate theproducts which pass off the patent, as mentioned above, is limitedto patent passingoff cases only. The fourth amendment of thepatent law still does not give local IP offices such power inhandling patent infringement cases.
(4) Extended Time limit for InitiatingLitigation
According to Article 74 of the fourth amendment of the patentlaw, the time limit for taking legal action against patent rightinfringement was extended from two years to three years, commencingfrom the date when the patentee or interested party knows or shouldhave known of the infringing activity and the infringer. Similarly,if a patentee wants to sue another party for compensation duringthe period from the publication of the invention patent applicationto the grant of the patent right, the time limit for taking legalaction is also extended from two years to three years, commencingfrom the date when the patentee knows or should have known of theuse of the patent by that other party. However, the time limitshall commence from the date when the patent right is granted, ifthe patentee knows or should have known of the use before thepatent right is granted.
In the fourth amendment, the second aspect of changes from thecurrent patent law relates to design patent practice. Specifically,it includes extended patent term for design, allowance of partialdesign and possibility of claiming domestic priority for designapplications.
According to Article 42 of the fourth amendment of the patentlaw, the term of a design patent shall be 15 years, extended from10 years as prescribed in the current patent law. It is believedthat this change is part of China's effort to join the HagueAgreement.
Article 2 of the fourth amendment redefines design as any newdesign of the shape, the pattern or their combination, or thecombination of the color with shape or pattern, of the whole or apart of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fitfor industrial application. This makes it possible to protect aportion of a product, often referred to as "partialdesign". Under the current law, a design patent can onlyprotects a complete product but not a portion of a product whichcannot be separated or cannot be sold and used independently.Allowance of partial design makes design practice in China moresimilar to that in many other jurisdictions and offers broaderprotection of design patents. Without having to limit their designpatent to specific complete products even though the design pointsare only related to certain part of such products, design patentright holders will be in a better position to protect themselvesfrom infringers who may be able to avoid the risk of infringementby only copying their design points and using them in a differentshaped product.
The allowance of partial design also renders design patentprotection for graphic user interface (GUI) more useful. Applicantsdo not have to protect the product, i.e. the display screen panel,with the GUI, in their design patents, as under the currentpractice. Instead, a design patent may be used to protect thedesign of the GUI itself, with the other parts of the productdisclaimed and presented by dotted lines. Even in the GUI itself,some parts may be disclaimed through the use of dotted lines. Itwill be interesting to see what standard will be used in theexamination of partial design application.
Article 29 of the fourth amendment of the patent law includesdomestic priority for design applications, which is not availableunder the current patent law. Specifically, if within 6 months fromthe date an applicant first files an application for a designpatent in China, he files another design application in China forthe same subject matter, the applicant may enjoy the right ofpriority. Under the current domestic priority practice forinvention and utility model applications, when domestic priority isclaimed, the first filed Chinese application will be deemed to bewithdrawn. Therefore, it is not possible to keep both applications.It is reasonable to believe that this also applies to designapplications.
In the fourth amendment, the third aspect of changes from thecurrent patent law relates to drug patents. Specifically, itincludes patent term extension and patent linkage system.
(1) Patent Term Extension
Article 42 of the fourth amendment provides that in order tocompensate for the time spent in the review and marketing approvalof new drugs, at the request of the patentee, CNIPA (China NationalIntellectual Property Administration) may grant compensation forthe term of the invention patent related to the new drug which hasbeen approved for marketing in China. The compensation period shallnot exceed five years, and the total effective period of patentright after the new drug is approved for marketing shall not exceed14 years.
It is to be noted that "Bolar exemption" is availableunder the current patent law, i.e. use of a drug patent for thepurpose of application for drug approval is not considered a patentinfringing activity, but extension of patent term is not available.The inclusion of patent term extension in the fourth amendment ofthe patent law better balances the interest of innovative drugcompanies and the generic companies. There are no detailedprovisions available yet regarding how the extension will becalculated. However, it can be expected that this new provisionencourages innovative drug companies, especially foreign drugoriginators to bring their new drugs to the Chinese market as earlyas possible and hence make new drugs more accessible to the Chinesepeople.
(2) Patent Linkage System
Article 76 of the fourth amendment of the patent law providesthat in the process of review and marketing approval of a drug, ifa dispute arises between the applicant for the marketing approvalof the drug and the relevant patentee or interested party due tothe patent right related to the drug applying for registration, therelevant party may bring a suit in the people's court andrequest a judgment be made on whether the related technicalsolution of the drug applying for registration falls within thescope of protection of other's drug patent. The drug regulatorydepartment of the State Council may, within the prescribed timelimit, make a decision on whether to suspend the marketing approvalof the relevant drug based on the effective judgment of thepeople's court.
The applicant for marketing approval of a drug and the relevantpatentee or interested party may also request an administrativeruling from CNIPA for the dispute over the patent right related tothe drug applying for registration.
Article 76 further provides that the drug regulatory departmentof the State Council, in conjunction with CNIPA, shall formulatespecific measures for the connection between the marketing approvalof drugs and the resolution of patent disputes in the stage ofapplication for marketing approval of drugs, which shall beimplemented after the approval of the State Council.
The newly added article introduces the socalled"patent linkage system" into the patent law, whichprovides an early resolution mechanism for drug patent disputes,aiming to resolve potential patent disputes before relevant drugsare marketed. However, by the completion of this article, detailedrules in this area still need to be formulated, such asavailability of experimental data protection period for drugs, andthe establishment of China's Patent Information RegistrationPlatform for Approved Drugs, equivalent to the correspondingcontent in "Approved Drug Products with TherapeuticEquivalence Evaluations" in the US, commonly known as the"Orange Book". Other drug related measures may also needto be updated to reflect the changes in this regard, such as anupdated application process for drug approval, or a revised Catalogof Approved Drugs.
As a matter of fact, on September 11, 2020, the National MedicalProducts Administration and CNIPA jointly issued"Implementation Measures for the Early Resolution Mechanismfor Drug Patent Disputes (Trial Version) (Draft for Comment)"for public comments. On April 25, 2018, the National MedicalProducts Administration issued "Implementation Measures forthe Protection of Drug Experimental Data (Trial Version)" forpublic comments. Neither one has been finalized and implementedyet. However, it is reasonable to expect that a full system similarto that established by HatchWaxman Act in the US will beavailable in China soon.
Articles 50 to 52 of the fourth amendment of the patent lawprovide an "Open License" system. Specifically, apatentee may express in writing to CNIPA its willingness to licensetheir patents to anyone and specify relevant royalties and methodof payment. CNIPA will announce the patentee's statement andoffer the open license. Patent right evaluation report should beprovided with the offer of an open license for utility model ordesign patent. If a patentee withdraws its offer of open license,it must do so in writing and CNIPA will announce the withdrawalstatement. In this case, any previously granted open license shallnot be affected.
According to Article 51, anyone that is willing to exploit thepatent which is open licensed gets the license to exploit thepatent after it informs the patentee in writing, and pay thelicense fee according to the open license announcement. In otherwords, anyone that complies with the above provision automaticallygets a license. In addition, the same article specifies that thepatentee that offers the open license and potential licensees canstill negotiate on license fees. However, the patentee that offersthe open license may only grant ordinary licenses and shall notgrant a sole or exclusive license for the patent concerned.Moreover, if any dispute arises with respect to the open license,the relevant parties may either request mediation from CNIPA orlaunch a law suit in people's court.
Interestingly, in order to encourage patentees to offer openlicenses, the fourth amendment of the patent law provides thatduring the implementation period of the open license, the annuitiespaid by the patentee shall be reduced or exempted.
(1) Patent Term Adjustment
Patent term adjustment is made available in Article 42 of thefourth amendment of the patent law. It is believed that this changewas made in line with the ChinaUS phase 1 trade agreement.Specifically, where an invention patent right was granted afterfour years from the filing date of the invention patent applicationand after three years from the date of the substantive examinationrequest, CNIPA shall, at the request of the patentee, providecompensation for the term of the patent with respect to theunreasonable delay in the examination stage of the inventionpatent. Not detailed calculation method is available yet.
(2) A New Grace Period Provision
Article 24 of the fourth amendment includes a new provision thatrelates to grace period. Specifically, disclosure of an inventionfor public interest in case of national emergency can enjoy thegrace period of 6 month.
(3) Patent Right Evaluation Report
Under the current patent law, if a dispute over patentinfringement involves a utility model patent or a design patent,the people's court or the administration office may require thepatentee or the interested parties to present a patent rightevaluation report prepared by the CNIPA through searching,analyzing, and assessing the relevant utility model or design,which shall serve as evidence for trying or handling the patentinfringement dispute. Currently only patentees or the licenseesthat have the right to launch law suits have the right to requestpatent right evaluation reports. In the fourth amendment of thepatent law, it is provided that relevant parties from both sides ofthe law suit may request the patent right evaluation reportproduced by CNIPA. This means that not only the patentee canrequest the CNIPA to produce the patent right evaluation report butthe defendant is also able to do so. It provides a new vehicle foralleged infringers to defend themselves.
However, for a party that is not involved in an infringement lawsuit but is concerned with potentially infringement on a utilitymodel or a design patent, it is still not possible to request apatent right evaluation report from CNIPA.
(4) Extended Deadline to Submit PriorityDocuments
According to Article 30 of the fourth amendment, an applicantwho claims priority from an invention or a utility model patentapplication shall submit a written declaration at the time offiling an application and submit copies of the patent applicationdocuments filed for the first time, within 16 months from the dateon which the invention or utility model patent application wasfiled for the first time. In other words, for invention or utilitymodel applications, the deadline for submitting priority documentsis extended from 3 months from claiming priority to 16 months fromthe priority date.
Copies of priority documents for claiming priority from a designapplication should be submitted within 3 months from filing anapplication for design patent.
(5) AntiMonopoly Provision
The fourth amendment of the patent law includes a new Article 20which is a very broad antimonopoly provision. Specifically,it provides that the application for and the use of patent rightsshould follow the principle of good faith. Patent right should notbe abused to damage public interest and other's legitimaterights. Abuse of patent rights to exclude or restrict competition,which constitutes monopolistic behavior, shall be dealt with inaccordance with the AntiMonopoly Law of China. Currently,there are several laws, regulations or judicial interpretations inplace to address the abuse of intellectual property right. However,it will be interesting to see how this provision is applied inlitigation in the future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.
EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment – EFF
Posted: at 1:57 pm
With increasing frequency, law enforcement is using unconstitutional digital dragnet searches to attempt to identify unknown suspects in criminal cases. In Commonwealth v. Dunkins, currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, EFF and the ACLU are challenging a new type of dragnet: law enforcements use of WiFi data to retrospectively track individuals precise physical location.
Phones, computers, and tablets connect to WiFi networksand in turn, the Internetthrough a physical access point. Since a single access point can only service a limited number of devices within a certain range, WiFi networks that have many users and cover larger geographic areas have multiple stationary access points. When a device owner moves through a WiFi network with multiple access points, their device seamlessly switches to the nearest available point. This means that an access point can serve as a proxy for a device owners physical location. As an access point records a unique identifier for each device that connects to it, along with the time the device connected, access point logs can reveal a devices precise location over time.
In Dunkins, police were investigating a robbery that occurred in the middle of the night in a dorm at Moravian College in eastern Pennsylvania. To identify a suspect, police obtained logs of every device that connected to the 80-90 access points in the dormabout one access point for every other dorm roomaround the time of the robbery. From there, police identified devices belonging to several dozen students. They then narrowed their list to include only non-residents. That produced a list of three devices: two appeared to belong to women and one appeared to belong to a man who later turned out to be Dunkins. Since police believed the suspect was a man, they focused their investigation on that device. They then obtained records of Dunkins phone for five hours on the night of the robbery, showing each WiFi access point on campus that his phone connected to during that time. Dunkins was ultimately charged with the crime.
We argued in our brief that searches like this violate the Fourth Amendment. The WiFi log data can reveal sensitive location information, so it is essentially identical to the cell phone location records that the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter require a warrant. Just like cell phone records, the WiFi logs offered the police the ability to retrospectively track a persons movement, including inside constitutionally protected spaces like students dorm rooms. And just as the Carpenter court recognized that cell phones are essential for participation in modern life, accessing a college WiFi network is equally indispensable to college life.
Additionally, we argued that even if police had obtained a warrant, such a warrant would be invalid. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching a particular target. But in this case, police only knew that a crime occurredthey did not have a suspect or even a target device identifier. Assessing virtually the same situation in the context of a geofence warrant, two federal judges recently ruled that the governments application to obtain location records from a certain place during a specific time period failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendments particularity and probable cause requirements.
The polices tactics in this case illustrate exactly why indiscriminate searches are a threat to a free society. In acquiring and analyzing the records from everyone in the dorm, the police not only violated the defendants rights but they also wrongly learned the location of every student who was in the dormitory in the middle of the night. In particular, police determined that two women wholly unconnected to the robbery were not in their own dorm rooms on the night of the crime. Thats exactly the type of dragnet surveillance that the Fourth Amendment defends against.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. In Pennsylvania and across the nation, public WiFi networks are everywhere. And for poor people and people of color, free public WiFi is often a crucial lifeline. Those communities should not be at a greater risk of surveillance than people who have the means to set up their own private networks. We hope the court will realize whats at stake here and rule that these types of warrantless searches are illegal.
Main Points Of The Fourth Amendment To Chinese Patent Law (Approved On October 17, 2020, Effective From June 1, 2021) – Intellectual Property – China…
Posted: at 1:57 pm
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
China's National People's Congress has approved theFourth Amendment to Chinese Patent Law on October 17, 2020. Theamended law will be effective from June 1, 2021. We also expectthat the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law and thePatent Examination Guidelines will also be amended accordingly,before the effective date of the amended law. These regulations andrules will provide more explanation and details regarding theAmendment.
Although the approved version of the Fourth Amendment issomewhat different from the previous versions, we do not think itis necessary to discuss these differences. Rather, we will discusskeys changes in the approved version as compared to the currentlaw. We haveparaphrased and highlighted inblue the key changes below,followed by ourcomments in black.
Article 2.4 Partial designs will be allowed.
A much welcomed change. It will provide flexibility to allapplicants and much convenience to applicants from countries wherepartial designs are allowed.
Article 15.2 For service-inventions, the state encouragesemployers to implement ownership incentives and adopt means such asequities, options, and profit sharing, etc., to allow the inventorsto reasonably share the benefits of innovation.
Although the provision is only an "encouragement",rather than a requirement, we do not think that it is necessary orproper. We think that the employers should be left freely, withinthe boundary of law, to decide on how to reward and remunerate theinventors. We look forward to more details.
Article 20.1 In exercising the application or patent right, oneshould follow the principle of honesty and credibility, but shallnot abuse the right to harm public interest or other'slegitimate rights.
We think that the stated principle is appropriate, but lookforward to further interpretation and details.
20.2 Abusing patent right, excluding or restricting competition,if constituting monopolistic conduct, shall be treated according toAnti-Monopoly Law of China.
This provision corresponds with the Anti-Monopoly Law.
Article 24.1 (1) Newly added exception to novelty-defeatingdisclosures: Disclosures made within 6 months of application dateand for public interest purposes during national emergency orextraordinary situation.
We think that a typical example of the exception would be forsomeone to publish a research paper regarding treatment or vaccinefor the corona virus before filing the relevant patent application,but look forward to further interpretation and details.
Article 29 Applicant may claim priority to its own first-filedChinese design patent application within six (6) months of thefirst filing and for the same subject matter.
Applicant can already do so in invention and utility modelpatent applications.
Article 42.1 Design patent term will be extended to fifteen (15)years, from the current ten (10) years.
It is generally believed that this provision will help clear theway for China to join the Hague Agreement, which other majorcountries have all joined.
42.2 For patents granted after four (4) years since applicationdate and three (3) years since request for substantive examination,applicant may request for patent term extension on the basis ofunreasonable delays during prosecution of the patent, except fordelays caused by the applicant.
We look forward to further details.
42.3 In order to compensate for time used for new drugevaluation and approval, the term of a relevant patent for anapproved new drug in China may be extended by up to five (5) yearsupon request by patentee. However, after the new drug entersmarket, the total remaining term of the relevant patent may notexceed fourteen (14) years.
A much welcomed provision for the pharmaceutical industry. Welook forward to further details.
Articles 50 52 Provisions regarding Open PatentLicenses, setting out mechanisms and procedures whereby patentowners can publish, through the CNIPA, their intentions to licensetheir patents to any interested party. Annuities will be reduced orwaived during the license period.
The provisions will help to further commercialize Chinesepatents. We look forward to more details.
Article 66.2 In an infringement action involving a utility modelor design patent before court or administrative agency, all partiescan submit the Patentability Assessment Report on their own.Currently only the patentee and interested party can do so uponrequest by court.
The report will be more important when enforcing utility modelor design patents.
Article 70.1 CNIPA, at the request of patentee or interestedparty, may handle patent infringement disputes that havesignificant impact nationwide.
We think this is an inappropriate enlargement of the CNIPA'sauthority and jurisdiction, but look forward to more details.
70.2 Patent administrative authority of a local government, atthe request of patentee or interested party to handle patentinfringement disputes, may combine cases involving the same patentwithin its jurisdiction. The authority may also request a higherlevel local government authority to handle cases involving the samepatent across different jurisdictions.
This is further streamlining of the administrativeauthority's handling of patent disputes.
Article 71.1 Patentee's loss and infringer's gain aretreated equally as basis for determining damage amounts.
This provides more option/freedom to the patentee in provingdamage amounts.
71.1 In case of willful infringing act, if the circumstances aresevere, the court may set the amount of damages to be one (1) tofive (5) times of the determined amount.
While this may provide more deterrence, it could also beexcessive.
71.2 Statutory damage amount will be under RMB 5 million (aboutUS$715,000). Currently the amount is under RMB 1 million.
A much welcomed change as damage amounts in most cases are stilldetermined based on the statutory amount.
71.4 In order to determine the amount of damages, if theplaintiff has done everything within its ability and the relevantaccount books and materials are mainly under the infringer'scontrol, the court may order the infringer to provide such accountbooks and materials. If the infringer does not provide or providefalse account books or materials, the court may determine thedamage amount by considering the plaintiff's request andevidence.
This will make it easier for the patentee to prove the damageamount.
Article 74.1 Statute of limitation for filing infringementlawsuit is three (3) years (currently two years) from when patenteeknew or should have known the infringement action and theinfringer.
This is in line with China's civil procedure law.
Article 76.1 During administrative review and approval for adrug, the party seeking drug approval and the patentee of arelevant patent may initiate legal proceeding with the court todetermine whether the drug falls within the protection scope of thepatent. The drug regulatory agency, within a specified period oftime, may decide whether to suspend the drug review and approvalprocess based on an effective judgment by the court.
This generally sets up a mechanism for settling patent disputesin drug regulatory review and approval process. But there are manydetails that will need to be clarified.
76.2 The parties may also request the CNIPA to make anadministrative decision regarding the patent dispute.
This is an enlargement of the CNIPA's jurisdiction. We lookforward to more details.
76.3 The Drug Regulatory Authority and the CNIPA will formulatespecific linkage methods regarding drug marketing approval andpatent dispute resolution during the approval period.
We look forward to more details.
As can be seen, the Fourth Amendment introduced a number ofmajor changes to the Chinese Patent Law. At the same time, theimplementation of these changes will largely depend oninterpretation and further details regarding the provisions. Welook forward to the corresponding Implementing Regulations by theState Council and the Patent Examination Guidelines by the CNIPA inthe coming months. We will keep you informed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.