Blockchain Papers

Ifeanyi E. Okonkwo

No abstract is available for this record.

Nigel S. Clarke, Björn Jürgens, Víctor Herrero-Solana

No abstract is available for this record.

Siguna Mueller

This study investigates the role and functionality of special nucleotide sequences (DNA signatures) to detect the presence of an organism and to distinguish it from all others. After highlighting vulnerabilities of the prevalent DNA signature paradigm for the identification of agricultural genetically modified (GM) organisms it will be argued that these so-called signatures really are no signatures at all - when compared to the notion of traditional (handwritten) signatures and their generalizations in the modern (digital) world. It is suggested that a recent contamination event of an unauthorized GM Bacillus subtilis strain (Paracchini et al. (2017)) in Europe could have been - or the same way could be - the consequence of exploiting gaps of prevailing DNA signatures. Moreover, a recent study (Mueller (2019)) proposes that such DNA signatures may intentionally be exploited to support the counterfeiting or even weaponization of GM organisms (GMOs). These concerns mandate a re-conceptualization of how DNA signatures need to be realized. After identifying central issues of the new vulnerabilities and overlying them with practical challenges that bio-cyber hackers would be facing, recommendations are made how DNA signatures may be enhanced. To overcome the core problem of signature transferability in bioengineered mediums, it is necessary that the identifier needs to remain secret during the entire verification process. On the other hand, however, the goal of DNA signatures is to enable public verifiability, leading to a paradoxical dilemma. It is shown that this can be addressed with ideas that underlie special cryptographic signatures, in particular those of ‘zero-knowledge’ and ‘invisibility.’ This means more than mere signature hiding, but relies on a knowledge-based proof and differentiation of a secret (here, as assigned to specific clones) which can be realized without explicit demonstration of that secret. A reconceptualization of these principles can be used in form of a combined (digital and physical) method to establish confidentiality and prevent un-impersonation of the manufacturer. As a result, this helps mitigate the circulation of possibly hazardous GMO counterfeits and also addresses the situation whereby attackers try to blame producers for deliberately implanting illicit adulterations hidden within authorized GMOs.

Sean Thomas

This paper examines how circular economics addresses and uses smart technology, and demonstrates the lack of consideration given to ownership issues in such contexts. The extent to which circular economic ideals require controlling goods down-stream will be exposed. Following this is an analysis of the ramifications of smart technology, illustrated with recent examples of control through smart technology. This leads to a critique of the US Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent exhaustion Impression Products v Lexmark alongside the CJEU’s decision in UsedSoft on copyright, addressing implications for contracting practices. The article concludes by urging close comparison of claimed benefits arising from circular economic approaches to smart technology with the potential costs of control (or lack thereof) of novel technologies.

George Robert Barker

No abstract is available for this record.

Purwono Purwono, Alfian Ma’arif, Wahyu Rahmaniar, Qazi Mazhar ul Haq · 6 authors

Blockchain technology has a promising future in a number of industries and enterprises. Formerly connected to virtual currency like Bitcoin, blockchain has evolved into a versatile technology with many applications. In the upcoming years, it is predicted that blockchain will revolutionize a variety of industries, including banking, supply chain management, healthcare, voting systems, and more. The future of blockchain technology depends critically on its ability to increase security and transparency. By providing a decentralized and unchangeable record, eliminating the need for middlemen, and boosting participant confidence, blockchain promotes secure and traceable transactions. This transparency has the potential to transform whole industries by reducing fraud, streamlining processes, and increasing output. Blockchain also has the power to change financial systems. Blockchain-based smart contracts facilitate faster, more efficient transactions by automating and enforcing contractual agreements without the need for middlemen. By enabling speedier cross-border transactions, reducing costs, and boosting financial inclusion, tokenization and blockchain-based digital currencies have the potential to overturn conventional banking institutions. Blockchain’s key attributes, including decentralization, transparency, immutability, and security, make it a desirable choice for a range of organizations. Cross-border payments, trade finance, and smart contracts are just a few of the financial sector processes that blockchain technology has the potential to enhance and automate, lowering costs and increasing productivity. Additionally, the tamper-resistance of blockchain technology can boost transaction security and reliability, allowing for a wider use in traditional financial institutions. Outside of the financial industry, blockchain technology has a lot of promise, particularly in industries like supply chain management, healthcare, energy, intellectual property, and governance. By enabling transparent and traceable transactions, blockchain may improve supply chain efficiency, ensure product authenticity, and boost customer trust. By facilitating the secure exchange of patient data and research data, the decentralized nature of blockchain technology can enhance data security, interoperability, and privacy in the healthcare sector. A more decentralized and sustainable energy ecosystem may be supported by blockchain technology through peer-to-peer energy exchange, grid management, and monitoring of renewable energy certificates in the energy sector. Additionally, blockchain technology has the potential to transform decentralized governance structures, voting procedures, intellectual property rights, and digital identity management. By allowing people to own and manage their digital identities, blockchain can enhance privacy and reduce identity theft. Blockchain-based voting systems can offer transparency, security, and verifiability, thereby increasing voter turnout and public trust in democratic institutions. Blockchain can also enable the secure and transparent management of intellectual property rights, fostering author credit and just compensation.

Anthony Salvagno

This post is an excerpt from my dissertation which can be found here via figshare. Note: The contained information pertains strictly to the US legal system, and is based on information I (Anthony Salvagno) alone researched. I am in no way a lawyer and offer no legal advice, but thought it would be foolish to not share basic copyright and patent law policy for scientific consideration. One of the biggest arguments I hear against open research is the fear about not being able to protect your intellectual property, also known as the fear of being scooped. The biggest oversight in that argument is that IP violations occur in traditional scientific culture both accidentally and maliciously. In an open environment, however, there is a greater risk of attracting this behavior if only because scientific research is made publicly available. With that said, there is nothing about being open that is any more inviting of harmful activity than in the traditional system. In fact, because of the current US legal system, being open may be more beneficial to protecting scientific information. With regards to the US legal system, there are two primary protections available to scientists: (1) copyright law would protect recorded scientific information, for example data and ideas, while (2) patent law would protect scientific processes, production, procedures, etc. Despite what is commonly believed, in no way does open notebook science prevent either protection from applying to scientific intellectual property. Open notebook science can actually stake your claim on IP and provide immediate protection. For patent law, patent protection is granted for one year once a work is publicly disclosed. If a patent is not filed, the IP becomes public domain and a patent can never be filed. In the case of copyright law, copyright applies from the moment of fixation (the moment scientific information is documented). In both cases, open notebook science can be used either as a defensive tactic to protect IP, or as an offensive tactic to prevent others from profiting from scientific IP. Copyright Law Copyright law is essentially very simple, and has been made increasingly simple since it was originally expanded upon in the US Constitution. The most recent addendum to this statute came about in the 1976 Copyright Act, which defined rights to copyright holders (exclusive rights), how copyright is achieved, and even what does/does not constitute infringement (fair use). While the law is simple in principle, copyright infringement is not necessarily black and white. In some instances it is questionable as to what is even copyrightable. In others, the matter of fair use is debatable. Even when there is infringement, it can be tough to prove because there are varying degrees of copying or “borrowing.” The bare-essential rules of copyright law can be seen in Table 1: Copyright is applied immediately from the moment any work is tangibly recorded, both publicly and privately. To be protected a work needs to be original (not novel) and there needs to be a minimum element of creativity (known as expression). The exclusive rights provided to copyright holders are reproduction, distribution, derivation, performance, and display. Copyright infringement is a federal offense! Even though copyright is applied immediately, in order to file suit for infringement a copyright needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office. A copyright is not violated if it has been determined that the infringer has a fair use of the material. Fair use is a broad definition and is only created as a defense in infringement suits. Table 1: Bare-essentials of copyright law. Rule 2 from Table 1 may reveal that copyright law doesn’t apply to most of science intellectual property, because it is fact based and process driven. Patent law was developed for this very reason. While there are no statutes against having dual protection in the form of patents and copyrights, it is not likely to receive copyright protection if there is patent protection since the copyright lasts much longer than the patent. But that’s not to say none of science is copyrightable. In fact, journal articles are in fact copyrighted. It can be interpreted that there is creative expression in organizing scientific discoveries (which are fact based) and that would make them copyrightable. Journals hold the copyrights for publications and have exclusive right to copy and distribute the articles any any material contained within. And there are cases where they’ve tried to enforce it. In that link, the author tries to distribute (via publishing in her blog) figures from a publication and receives a cease and desist letter. Unfortunately it will never be known if there was a violation because the infringement never went to trial. She made an argument for fair use, which probably has some grounds, but skirted around the issue by recreating the figures using the original data (which is NOT copyrightable), thus making her own original figures which are therefore copyrightable. There is a chance that she has no fair use argument since her reuse (even through attribution) is a clear violation of distribution rights and can be viewed as falling within the same scope of the original publication. In the case of publications, scientists waive their copyright upon submission and acceptance for publication and dissemination, and grant that copyright to the journal. Not all scientific output is formatted for publication, or released at all. In that case, it would greatly benefit scientists to publish their figures via an open notebook to provide copyright protection for their research (if that is in fact the goal). With regards to the traditional science system, scientists are offered protection from the moment they record their data and create figures based on that data. They are even protected at conferences where they present their research (either via an oral or poster format). This is specifically useful in the case of scientific scooping, which isn’t as rampant as we make it out to be but is still a major fear in the community. If there is a case of potential copyright infringement, you have the right to file suit (once you apply for copyright). If you can prove there was access to your research findings and there is substantial copying you may even win your case. If you are an open scientist, in that you publish your research findings online before peer reviewed publication, you may be in an even better position. You are granted the same rights as a traditional scientist. In the open case, however, the proof of access is much easier to demonstrate since a simple Google search can turn up your findings. The burden is then that you prove there is evidence of copying, which is hard enough as it is. Because of all the possible interpretations of copyright application to science, I highly advocate the use of the Creative Commons licenses. The CC0 (public domain), CC-BY (use with attribution), and CC-BY-SA (use with attribution and share alike) afford the copyright owner the ability to share their research findings with the community and in turn allow the community to share, use, and reuse those findings without fear of retaliation. It is incredibly important to note that using the CC licenses (with the exception of the CC0) does NOT waive all exclusive rights as a copyright holder. They allow you to waive your rights as long as the reuser of the original work attributes, shares, etc (per terms of the license) in turn. If those stipulations are infringed, you are free to take action. In fact, there is legal precedence of such action. The licenses provide a means for others to use information and data without worrying about moral ambiguities, legal issues, and in turn promote a culture of sharing and attribution. With the CC licenses there will be more societal pressure to do the right thing. When credibility is involved social pressure can work wonders. For more information, please refer to the US Copyright Office website. Patent Law The America Invents Act was initiated in 2011 and institutes some new changes to patent law. The newest inclusion to the law is that now patents are given based on a first-to-file system, whereas previously they were given through a first-to-invent system. This change was implemented on March 16, 2013 as a way to conform to international policy, but also to decrease the burden of the US Patent Office in identifying first-inventor which can be extremely complicated and arduous. In a first-to-file system, a patent will be granted to the first person to file a patent for a given invention. While the system is as simple as it sounds, it tends to give advantages to larger entities with the resources and efficiency to file patents for every invention conceived. It is outside the scope of this writing to argue the merits of a first-to-file or first-to-invent system, but this is mentioned because there are a couple of workarounds to the first-to-file mandate. The first is through the filing of a provisional application, and the second is through public disclosure. In both cases, there is a one-year grace period under which a patent must be filed lest it become public domain. The provisional application is a low cost option that grants an inventor protection from competitive patent filings. The fee is $125 for small entity inventors, such as individuals, and $250 for large entities like corporations. The intellectual property remains a secret during the provisional period until patent. Public disclosure is a free alternative to the provisional patent, in the sense that there is nothing to file with the patent office. With this method, the details of an invention become public information, but no competitor may file a patent. Scientifically speaking, patentable items include processes, designs, and technology of all sort (although computer programs are hard to patent or copyright). It is usually advantageous to maintain secrecy when dealing with intellectual property, and this culture is especially prevalent in science. As such many universities and institutions have legal services that aid scientists in patent filings. In an effort to maintain confidentiality, it is highly suggested by these services to file provisional applications for all inventions. Much like copyright, the ultimate goal of a patent is to prevent competitors from stealing and reproducing a work without the inventor benefitting. It is little known fact that patents become public information after filing, generally 18 months after the earliest filing date. It is entirely possible for competitors to analyze a patent and create a “non-obvious”derivation of the work that can then be patented. In this scenario the benefit of the patent application is essentially lost. Open notebook science can be a major benefit to the new patent process. Since it does cost money to file a provisional application, ONS (or other web disclosure) would provide a free alternative to the provisional application. The only difference between the two routes is that through ONS, the patent is immediately public information, while the provisional application maintains invention secrecy. Because the patent will eventually be public domain, the incentive to innovate is delayed a bit through the provisional process. While ONS publicly discloses a scientific creation and encourages potential modification, it does not promote/encourage stealing the idea. Scientists are still protected from patent infringement. Now, if a competitor sees the notebook entries and makes non-obvious changes to the idea, then they can be granted a new patent, if filed. That is no different from how the patent process currently operates, it simply speeds up the process. Filing a provision for every idea ever produced and paying $125 every time is a waste of money and resources. It is highly unlikely that every idea/invention will come to fruition. It also gives the US patent office a lot of unnecessary paperwork, and could actually stifle innovation and creativity. ONS would in turn allow a researcher to disseminate their ideas and protect the best ones for the original creator. Resources could be better used to fight for the best ideas and allow others to develop the ideas that won’t necessarily get the same level of attention or ever be produced. In this way ONS could be used as a defensive tactic to protect a scientist from losing his/her best ideas. It is also possible for open notebook science to be used as an offensive tactic. In this maneuver, the documentation of ideas born from discussions or other endeavors creates prior art (which is essentially the same as public disclosure). An invention disclosed in prior art is exempt from patent protection. So in the case of public disclosure via ONS inventions would be blocked from filing for patent. Hypothetically, a researcher could publish any and all ideas, techniques, or technologies and prevent all competitors (and peers) from filing for patent. In the interest of sharing research information, open notebook science may be the best protection against impediments in the scientific process.

Dieter Zinnbauer

No abstract is available for this record.

Caroline Ayres Teichner

The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claims—namely, intent to deceive the public—by a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can be found in courts' historical treatment of the false-marking statute, the legislative history and policy rationales underlying § 292, and analogous legal contexts. More crucially, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates a higher burden of proof to protect the important interests at stake for false-marking defendants.

Jay Dratler

The Federal Trade Commission's 2003 innovation report revealed an interesting fact: the pharmaceutical industry is largely satisfied with today's patent system while the electronics, software and Internet industries are not. This article suggests that a difference in governing law accounts for the difference in satisfaction. The federal Food and Drug Act requires pharmaceutical inventions to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold. It thus requires completion of the entire inventive process for pharmaceuticals. Our patent system, however, has no analogous requirement for the other fields. In them, applicants may stake a claim to rivals' later inventive effort after completing only the very first step - conceptualizing - of a lengthy inventive process. The result is patents on abstractions that hold up real inventors, as in Blackberry, eBay and countless other cases to come. Unfortunately, developments in biotechnology, including patenting gene segments, suggest that the biotech industry may be closing the gap in early-stage patenting. This article suggests two ways to improve our patent system and reduce the difference in industry satisfaction. The first is to abolish the doctrine of constructive reduction to practice. A statutory amendment would require inventors, before receiving a patent, to invest reasonably in making, building, testing or at least simulating something concrete, in order both to demonstrate feasibility and to attract real seed capital. A second amendment would convert Section 103's nonobviousness criterion from an abstract test of cognitive difficulty to an economically meaningful test. The new test would encourage review of concrete economic factors such as investment of risk capital, real progress in bringing an invention to market, the assumption of technological risk, i.e., risk of total failure for nonmarket reasons, and a proven need for protection from free riders. Unlike current Section 103, the new test would consider how the invention was made and would permit hindsight. It would do so on the theory that patents protect not cognitive brilliance, but investment of risk capital in the entire process of invention, in which conceptualization is only a first step. The test would also recognize that investment, concrete progress, and risk are susceptible to proof in retrospect. The article outlines how, if adopted, these changes could help rationalize our patent system economically and eliminate the difference in satisfaction between pharmaceuticals and other fields of industry, whose own participants now see patents as impeding progress as often as promoting it.

Wallace E. Huffman, Richard E. Just, Huffman, Wallace E., Just, Richard E.

This paper reviews agricultural research structural and organizational changes in western developed countries, examines new financing prospects for agricultural research, and provides some tentative conclusions about which organizations are best positioned to provide services for the twenty-first century. Given that these countries face many similar economic, political, scientific, and agroclimatic factors and fiscal issues, we can expect a set of similar new developments that have potentially important and widespread long-run implications. After three common developments are outlined, principles of impure public good financing are applied leading to the following agricultural science policy recommendations: (i) new political jurisdictions should be formed to finance research, e.g. new alliances across countries and subregions within large countries; (ii) intellectual property rights should be strengthened to increase the total amount and share of total (public and private) agricultural research that is privately financed and conducted, i.e. the private sector should find it profitable to undertake a large share of applied research but not be expected to finance public-sector agricultural research; and (iii) the public sector should redirect its research efforts increasingly to areas that are socially worthwhile, but not privately undertaken, e.g. in the basic and pretechnology areas, on environmental, resources, food safety and human nutrition, and policy. Finally, large countries that have developed a system of shared public and private financing and performance and decentralized public support of agricultural research seem best positioned for meeting the needs of the twenty-first century.© 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Richard Graham Halliday, A.L. Drasdo, Cynthia E. Lumley, Stuart Walker

A survey of 45 leading pharmaceutical companies has been used to investigate aspects of their Research and Development (R&D) strategies, the allocation of resources including the financing and staffing of R&D functions, and the numbers of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) in the development process. The companies included the top ten by R&D expenditure in 1992 (top 10 companies). The study identified characteristics of leading companies and provided comparative data. The principal findings are that: top ten companies had the highest R&D to sales ratios, progressed more NCEs after the drug candidate selection stage in 1992 and had achieved a greater geographical decentralization of staff than any other company. Japanese companies differed in some respects from western companies, even those of a similar size. They operated with smaller clinical and regulatory affairs functions and made detailed plans for R&D expenditure further ahead than western companies, on average, more than 5 years compared with 3 years. an increase in aggregated R&D staffing had occurred between 1990 and 1992 in 33 companies for which data for both years were available and staff numbers had decreased in only five of those companies. top ten companies differed from others in their apparent productivity measured in terms of staff or R&D expenditure per NCE after the drug candidate selection stage, utilizing more staff and having greater R&D expenditure per NCE. The results also appear to indicate early signs of a change in the structure of the industry according to R&D expenditure, which has since become more apparent. There was a distinct polarization by R&D budget size among the respondent companies: five companies were spending $900m or more on R&D in 1992 while the majority of the rest were spending less than a third of that amount.