Papers on intellectual property and computer law by Professor Lee A. Hollaar of the School of Computing at the University of Utah.

• "Before Reforming Copyright Law, Look at the Why of the Current Law" (with Mark Hollaar), published in BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (PTCJ), looks at the historical reasons for aspects of copyright law that might not be relevant today.

• "Avoiding Fee-Shifting as the Plaintiff in a Software-Based Patent Suit" published in BNA's United States Law Week, discusses what should be done before filing a patent infringement suit to avoid having the defendant's attorney fees and costs shifted to the plaintiff.

• "The Form of a Software Claim Makes a Big Difference," published in BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal (PTCJ), discusses how the claim form for software-based inventions can determine who infringes the claim and whether the claim is infringed by conduct in foreign countries.

• "Could Benson Get a Patent Today?," published by BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, discusses how with a better specification, Benson might be able to get his patent today even after the Supreme Court's decision in CLS v. Alice and the following Federal Circuit opinions and USPTO guidance.

• "The Use of Neutral Experts" published in BNA's Expert Evidence Report, discusses the role of a neutral expert in litigation as a way to resolve issues much more efficiently.

• "Requesting and Examining Computer Source Code" published in BNA's Expert Evidence Report, discusses how source code is used in litigation.

• Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Alice v. CLS, based on an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit in CLS v. Alice. It reconciles the three Supreme Court software patent cases (Benson, Flook, and Diehr) by noting that the prosecution history in Benson states that the method could be performed by hand, much like the method in Flook.

• Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, discussing the patentability of software, business methods, and other processes, following one to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Microsoft v. i4i. The approach proposed was first presented in my amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the KSR v. Teleflex patent case, and the two papers that support it: "Unclear and Unconvincing: How a misunderstanding led to the heightened evidentiary requirement in patent litigation" and "The Motivation for the Federal Circuit Test."

• Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group, saying that Congress limited the property rights granted by a patent in a number of ways, including for the patent to be administratively reviewed in light of prior art not considered when it was granted.

• "Sony Revisited: A new look at contributory copyright infringement" which discussed the liability of inducement of copyright infringement, of particular interest because of legislation pending in Congress. It was the basis for my amicus brief to the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, whose unanimous decision confirms the position of the paper and the brief.

• "Made to Measure," a discussion of how an antiquated examiner performance measure and an archaic application fee structure lead to bad patents. Submitted to the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society.

• "Justice Douglas Was Right: The Need For Congressional Action On Software Patents" first published in the AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Volume 24, Number 1, pages 283-305, Winter 1996.

• "A New Technology Protection" discusses the problems with current patents, especially for fast-moving technology, and proposes a new, alternative form of technology protection combining the best attributes of patent and copyright. Possible statutory language is also available. The paper is the latest version of "A New Look at Patent Reform," originally published in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society.

• A trilogy of short notes on copyright and technology policy, published by the Institute for Policy Innovation as Issue/Briefs:

  • "Bad Trade: Will Congress Unwittingly Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Violate Our Trade Treaties?" saying that changes to the DMCA could abrogate our trade treaties. A follow-up, "Still 'Bad': A Critique of the Latest Attempt to Gut the DMCA," discusses how the past attempts have be repackaged, but still are a bad idea.

  • "What's 'Fair'? Why Those Concerned About Copyright Fair Use Need To Say What They Mean" discussing three different forms of fair use and why each must be considered differently.

  • "Mountains Out of Molehills: How Believing the Worst Makes Technologists Ineffective, And What They Can Do About It" whose title pretty much describes the paper.

• "Filesharing Programs and 'Technological Features to Induce Users to Share'", a report to the United States Patent and Trademark Office from its Office of International Relations, with Thomas D. Sydnor II (principal author) and John Knight.

• "Congress: Don't censor the internet, but help users avoid unwanted material" written in 1997, just after the Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court finding the Child Online Protection Act has the same problems, it may be time to look at this proposed approach again.

This web site is hosted by the School of Computing at the University of Utah, and is subject to this disclaimer.

Last updated: 11-17-2017