Innovation proceeds unabated in all areas of high technology despite the slowdown of the global economy. New developments in Web 2.0 applications, telecommunications, information technolo-

gies, greentech, and biotechnology continue to generate complex legal and ethical issues at the intersection of law, technology, and business.

BCLT is keeping pace. We are carrying out ground-breaking, empirical research to expand the body of reliable knowledge about IP, Privacy Law, and Cyberlaw, and we remain committed to offering the best possible educa-tion to tomorrow’s leaders in technology law.

This year’s bulletin offers a small sampling of our recent successes and current initiatives:•Thankstoagenerousgrantfromthe

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, we have completed our survey of the relation-ship between intellectual property law and entrepreneurship, and we are now mining the findings. See page 2 for an update.

Message from the Executive Director•BCLTco-directorProfessorPeterMenell

has extended his work with federal judges in IP law by spearheading the creation of the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide. See page 3.

•Nextyear, BCLTwillcelebratethetricen-tennial of the venerable Statute of Anne by co-hosting a major symposium to address the history and future of copyright law. See page 2 for details.

Cutting-edge CurriculumBCLT’s research and instructional programs continue to attract highly qualified students interested in careers in technology law. Our preeminent regular faculty (see page 4) is aug-mented by an adjunct faculty of leading practi-tioners who offer advanced courses such as Antitrust and IP; Intellectual Property Strategy; Telecommunications, Broadcast, and Internet Law; Video Game Law; Patent Litigation; Patent Prosecution; Biotechnology and Chemical Patent Law; Mergers and Acquisitions in High Tech; and Cyberlaw. Our students also have the opportunity to participate in several student organizations, including the Berkeley Technology Law Journal (BTL J), the Patent Law Society, the

Healthcare and Biotech Law Society, and the Sports and Entertainment Law Society.

Welcome. . .BCLT and Berkeley Law are proud to have added two more outstanding legal scholars to the Technology Law faculty. Berkeley Law graduate Jennifer Urban ’00, who comes to us from the University of Southern California, is now assistant clinical professor of law and co-director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic. Newly appointed assistant professor Talha Syed, who will graduate from Harvard Law School’s SJD program early next year, recently completed an academic fellow ship at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Bioethics and Biotechnology, also at Harvard Law.

. . .and FarewellTwo recent BCLT research fellows have obtained full-time faculty positions. Ted Sichelman, who worked as a Ewing Marion Kauffman Fellow, is now assistant professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. And former Microsoft Fellow, Berkeley Law graduate Aaron Perzanowski ’06, is now assis-tant professor at Wayne State University Law School. We wish both great success. n —Robert Barr

Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Annual Bulletin

bclt@law.berkeley.edu www.bclt.berkeley.edu • 1

PHO

TOG

rA

PHy

By

JIM

BLO

CK

(rO

BEr

T B

Ar

r)

Motivations for Seeking Patent Protection, by D&B IndustryBiotechnology Medical Devices Software

Preventing others fromcopying our products or services

Improving our chancesof securing investment

Obtaining licensing revenues

Improving chances/quality of liquidity (e.g., acquisition/IPO)

Preventing patent infringementactions against us

Improving negotiating position with other companies (e.g., cross-licensing)

Enhancing company’s reputation/product image

Not Important

Slightly Important

Moderately Important

VeryImportant

1 2 3 4

Question asked of those reporting their company had filed for at least one U.S. patent: “How important or unimportant have the following been to your company in seeking patent protection in the United States?”

Copyright@300: Looking Back at theStatute of Anne and Looking Forwardto the Future

Why Do Startups Patent? Findings of a BCLT Research Project

2010 will mark the 300th anniversary of the Statute of Anne, the first modern copyright law. Enacted in 1710 by the English Parliament, the statute represented a marked departure from the Stationers Company’s pre-modern “copie-right” regime which preceded it. Among other things, the Statute of Anne articulated a rationale for a grant of protec-tion—encouraging learned men to write books, it vested rights in authors; it allowed copyright only in newly created books; and it limited the term of copyright to 14 years, after which the book entered the public domain (unless the author renewed his claim for another 14 years).

The tricentennial of the Statute of Anne is a suitable occasion for looking back at the law’s influence on the history and evolution of the Anglo-American copyright tradition. It is also an opportunity to look forward—to explore how the lessons from this history might help us surmount the challenges that lie ahead for copyright law in the 21st century.

BCLT, in conjunction with the High Tech Law Institute of Santa Clara University Law School and the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, will host a two-day conference on April 9–10, 2010 to explore the past and future of copyright law. The event features an outstanding array of scholars and other experts from various disciplines. n

How often, and under what circumstances, do technology entrepreneurs file for pat-ents? When and why do they choose not to? Despite scholarly articles and anecdotes suggesting answers, there is scant reliable evidence to guide our understanding of the issue. To remedy this shortcoming, research-ers at BCLT are investigating the nexus between patenting and entrepreneurship in the United States. A forthcoming article in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal (BTLJ) titled “High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: results of the 2008

This stained glass window, located in the Stationers’ Hall in London, purports to depict King Edward IV and his Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, being shown a proof by English printer William Caxton.

PHO

TOG

rA

PHy

By

TA

rA

WH

EAT

LAN

D

2 • BERkELEy CEnTER FoR LAW & TEChnoLogy 2009 annual bulletin

Confirmed speakers inClude:

Olufunmilayo Arewa, Northwestern Law SchoolLionel Bently, Cambridge UniversityOren Bracha, University of Texas Law SchoolAndrew Bridges, Winston & Strawn LLPJulie E. Cohen, Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School

Kenneth Crews, Columbia Law SchoolAbraham Drassinower, University of Toronto Law School

Jim Gibson, University of richmondJane C. Ginsburg, Columbia Law SchoolTomás Gómez-Arostegui, Lewis & Clark Law SchoolCarla Hesse, University of California, BerkeleyJustin Hughes, Cardozo Law SchoolPeter Jaszi, American University Law SchoolJessica Litman, University of Michigan Law SchoolHonorable Margaret McKeown, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Thomas Nachbar, University of Virginia Law SchoolNeil Netanel, UCLA School of LawTyler Ochoa, Santa Clara University Law SchoolMarybeth Peters, U.S. register of CopyrightsT. Anthony reese, University of California, Irvine, School of Law

Mark rose, University of California, Santa BarbaraMatthew Sag, DePaul University Law SchoolPamela Samuelson, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law

Jule Sigall, Microsoft Corp.Christopher Sprigman, University of Virginia Law School

Michael Traynor, past president, American Law Institute

Molly Van Houweling, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law

Jeremy Williams, Time Warner, Inc.Tim Wu, Columbia Law School

reCent news from bClt

Berkeley Patent Survey” summarizes BCLT’s findings to date.

The Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Project Funding from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation allowed BCLT faculty co-directors robert Merges and Pam Samuelson—with executive director robert Barr—to under-take a comprehensive study of IP and entre-preneurship during 2007–2009. BCLT’s investigative approach included interviews of scholars, investors, attorneys, business-

people, and entrepreneurs; detailed written case studies; a Berkeley Law student semi-nar ; and a symposium and subsequent BTLJ volume on “Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.” Along with two Kauffman research fellows, Stuart Graham and Ted Sichelman, BCLT also conducted the “2008 Berkeley Patent Survey,” which polled U.S. high technology entrepreneurs on their usage of and attitudes toward the patent system.

Findings: Many Startups hold Patents, But Context MattersIn a major finding, the survey shows that many startups hold patents, but that patent-ing is context specific. The average technol-ogy startup reports holding about five patents, while those with venture backing average almost 20. These figures mask sub-stantial differences between industries, how-ever: While three-quarters of biotechnology and medical-device startups hold patents and applications, only one-quarter of software and Internet companies report doing so.

Motivations for Seeking Patent Protection, by D&B IndustryBiotechnology Medical Devices Software

Preventing others fromcopying our products or services

Improving our chancesof securing investment

Obtaining licensing revenues

Improving chances/quality of liquidity (e.g., acquisition/IPO)

Preventing patent infringementactions against us

Improving negotiating position with other companies (e.g., cross-licensing)

Enhancing company’s reputation/product image

Not Important

Slightly Important

Moderately Important

VeryImportant

1 2 3 4

Question asked of those reporting their company had filed for at least one U.S. patent: “How important or unimportant have the following been to your company in seeking patent protection in the United States?”

Promoting Progress in Patent Case ManagementThe Federal Judicial Center’s publication of the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide in May 2009 illustrates BCLT’s leadership in bringing together scholars, practitioners, and jurists to foster beneficial and ethical advancement of technology by promoting the understanding and guiding the development of intellectual property law. The Guide is now in the cham-bers of all federal courts.

The origins of this 600-page treatise date back more than a decade to Professor Peter Menell’s offer to assist the Federal Judicial Center with providing education for federal jurists about intellectual property law. In 1998, BCLT hosted a three-day intensive IP program for 40 judges. (Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the first year’s class.) The program received stellar reviews and Professor Menell has organized the program every year since, involving leading scholars, practitio-ners, and patent jurists.

With the growth of high technology over the past dozen years, patent law became a significant focus for the annual program,

reflecting the increase in the number, size, and complexity of patent cases. Although the pro-gram and materials provided valuable training and perspective, the reach of the program was limited to the 40 judges attending each year. As one jurist aptly noted, best practices for patent case management have been trans-mitted largely through word of mouth.

In 2006, Professor Menell proposed to the Federal Judicial Center and Lynn Pasahow, James Pooley, and Matthew Powers—leading practitioners and key participants in the program—the idea of developing a compre-hensive treatise on patent case management. Over the next two years, the team met with district and magistrate judges in the nation’s most active patent jurisdictions, as well as the Federal Circuit, in developing a compre-hensive, authoritative guide for patent case management.

Upon release of the Guide, one patent blog dubbed the volume the patent “Litigation Bible,” “a stellar compendium covering all aspects of patent litigation, not just judicial case manage-

ment.” Given the dizzying pace at which technological change and developments in patent litigation take place, the authors will be busy revising the manual. Next on their agenda is the launch of PatentCaseManagement.org, a Web site providing access to the guide and updates. n

bclt@law.berkeley.edu www.bclt.berkeley.edu • 3

factors led to not patenting a major innova-tion. Two-thirds of startups stated that the costs of prosecuting or enforcing patents

contributed to their decision to forgo patent-ing. But biotechnology executives were more likely to cite concerns about information dis-closure, while those running software and Internet companies more often said the technology was “not patentable,” possibly referring to subjective beliefs about success (likelihood of granting) or philosophy (soft-ware should not be patentable).

Dealing with Patents in the FieldThe survey also inquired into how startups contend with patents in their operating environment. While about one-third of respondents told us that checking the pat-ent literature is reasonably common, they sometimes do so only after launching their products or when considering patenting themselves. About one-tenth of all startups license others’ patents. While companies may benefit by acquiring new information or know-how in the transaction, they are also often trying to settle a controversy. In some cases, patent licenses are taken only to avoid a lawsuit.

ongoing ResearchBCLT will be exploring a host of related issues in its ongoing study of patenting and technology entrepreneurship. These include the drivers of patenting by entrepreneurs, patenting among software and Internet startups, patents in entrepreneurial “markets for technology,” how patents help startups to enter new markets, and the relationship of patenting to market valuation and exit, among others. n

To download a copy of the report of the survey results, point your browser to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049

“As one jurist aptly noted, best practices

for patent case management have been transmitted

largely through word of mouth.”

Industry matters in startup patenting, with biotechnology startups holding nearly 10 patents and applications on average, while software and Internet ventures hold an aver-age of two. Differences in financing also mat-ter, with venture-backed companies in the software and Internet sector more than three times more likely to hold patents and applications (68 percent) than are startups without venture-capital funding (19 percent).

Technology startups filing for patents tend to be most motivated by a desire to prevent copying, and to a lesser extent by reputa-tional and financial motives, including success-ful exit (such as being acquired or going public). Also, patenting may play an underap-preciated role in helping startups secure entrepreneurial capital—not only from ven-ture investors, but commercial banks and “friends and family” as well. A surprising one-third of startups that sought funding from ”friends and family” report that holding pat-ents had been an important factor to the investor in the negotiation.

respondents were also asked about what

4 • BERkELEy CEnTER FoR LAW & TEChnoLogy 2009 annual bulletin

2009–2010 bClt events and programs

Amy kapczynski intellectual property, global health, antidiscrimination, constitutional history

reCent papers

Assistant Professor of Law Kapczynski has published articles on antidiscrimination law, constitutional history, and intellectual property issues. Her current research interests occupy the intersections between international law, intellectual property, and global health.In 2001, Kapczynski helped lead efforts that resulted in yale University and Bristol-Myers Squibb permitting generic competition and

providing steep price discounts for an important anti-AIDS drug (d4T) in South Africa. Drawing on this experience, Kapczynski co-founded Universities Allied for Essential Medicines with other students in 2002.

Harmonization and Its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India’s Pharmaceutical Sector California Law Review, forthcoming 2009

The Story of the TAC Case: The Potential and Limits of Socio-Economic Rights Litigation in South Africa With Jonathan M. Berger, Human Rights Law Stories, Foundation Press, 2009

Deirdre Mulligan information technology law and policy, privacy, security, copyright

reCent papers

Assistant Professor of Information Mulligan’s current research agenda focuses on information privacy and security. Current projects include qualitative interviews to understand the institutionalization and management of privacy within corporate America and the role of law in corporate information security policy and practice. Other areas of current research include digital

rights management technology, and privacy and security issues in sensor networks and visual surveillance systems, and alternative legal strategies to advance network security.

Fighting Crime with Publicly-Financed Surveillance Cameras: The San Francisco Experience With Jennifer King and Steven Raphael, California Policy Options, 2009

Privacy Decision Making in Administrative Agencies With Kenneth Bamberger, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 75, 2008

past events

upComing events

•OnAugust 12 BCLT hosted a dinner for Israeli lawyers from Tel Aviv University’s International Executive LL.M. program, who were attending advanced legal courses at Berkeley Law during the summer.

•Every year BCLT holds a welcome orientation for all incoming first year students, introducing student group leaders and members of other groups, such as the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic. The Law & Tech student groups continue to meet once a month to collaborate on conference and event planning.

2009•october 15 At the Conference on Patent Cross Licensing, BCLT will analyze the why and how of cross-licensing. The featured speaker will be Marshall Phelps, author of Burning the Ships: Intellectual Property and the Transformation of Microsoft.

•october 22 BCLT will host Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger from the University of Singapore. He will dis-cuss his new book at Berkeley Law.

•october 23 BCLT, the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, and the Samuelson Law & Public Policy Clinic will sponsor a conference in Berkeley, Social networks: Friends or Foes? Confronting online Legal and Ethical Issues in the Age of Social networking.

•november 6 The Workshop on Patent Pools for neglected Diseases and World health will be hosted by BCLT and Berkeley’s chapter of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. Participants include scientists, patient advocates, IP scholars, pharmaceutical and bio-tech executives, and legal professionals.

•november 19–20 Professor Peter Menell will be organizing a patent law and case management pro-gram for administrative law judges and staff at the International Trade Commission in Washington, DC.

•Fall U.S. Patent and Trademark office Director, David kappos ’90, will visit Berkeley.

•December 9–10 The 10th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute Program, hosted by BCLT, the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology, and the University of Texas School of Law, will take place in Palo Alto.

•September 1 brought attorneys from 24 top law firms to the BCLT Technology Law Fall Job Fair at Berkeley Law, to connect law stu-dents with top IP practitioners.

•BCLTandtheInstituteofManagement, Innovation and Organization (IMIO) received a generous grant from nokia Corporation to support research projects. On September 22 and 23, Nokia representatives visited Berkeley Law to discuss the scope of the research.

2010•BCLT will begin the spring semester recruiting season by hosting over 30 top IP law firms and over 70 IP attorneys for a Spring Job Fair, for 1L and 2L students.

•January 28 Members of the Federal Trade Commission will visit Berkeley for a workshop about online Behavioral Advertising.

•January 29 BCLT’s Annual Privacy Lecture will be held in connection with California Law Review’s Annual Program.

•February BCLT is hosting a Conference on Legal and Policy Issues in Cloud Computing.

•April The Berkeley Technology Law Journal staff will honor their 2010–2011 slate of board members at a dinner. This event is also intended to introduce BTLJ alumni to the new board.

•April 9 The 14th Annual BCLT/BTLJ Symposium will focus on the 300th anniversary of the Statute of Anne and will include speakers who have been participating in the Copyright Principles Project that aims to make recommendations about copyright reform.

•May BCLT will host the Annual Federal Judicial Center IP Training in Berkeley.

• June 3–4 The Annual Privacy Law Scholars Conference will be held at George Washington University.

•August 12–13 BCLT will host the 10th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference in Berkeley. This event is organized by BCLT, Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology, DePaul University Center for IP Law & Technology, and Cardozo School of Law.

PHO

TOG

rA

PHy

By

JIM

BLO

CK

(6x

)

bclt@law.berkeley.edu www.bclt.berkeley.edu • 5

faCulty direCtors

Pamela Samuelson copyright, patent, internet and digital media, cyberlaw

reCent papers

Professor of Law Samuelson has recently been developing ideas for copyright reform, including guidelines for statutory damages in copyright law. She is also working on a paper on the constitutionality as well as the advisability of copyright office rule-making. Other current focuses include the Google Book Search settlement and the intellectual property strategies of software startups. With

Jason Schultz, she will submit a amicus curiae brief on patent subject matter to argue that the Bilski business method claim is not proper subject matter for patents, and that the Federal Circuit’s test for patent subject matter is flawed and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Statutory Damages in U.S. Copyright Law: A Remedy in Need of Reform William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 51, forthcoming 2009

The Dead Souls of the Google Book Search Settlement Communications of the ACM, Vol. 52, July 2009, republished at http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/legally-speaking-the-dead-soul.html

Peter Menell intellectual property, computer law, entertainment law

reCent papers

reflecting his training in economics and law, Professor of Law Menell’s research focuses principally on the role and design of intellectual property law in digital technology as well as content industries. His current projects explore legal protection for computer technology, the justifications for and contours of indirect copyright liability, and the adaptation of content and digital technology

industries to the internet age. Building on more than a decade working closely with the Federal Judicial Center, Menell also devotes substantial effort to the study of judicial management of intellectual property litigation. Menell also works in the environmental law and property law fields and is particularly interested in renewable energy and the clean/green technology field.

Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis and Structured Framework Berkeley Technology Law Journal, with Matthew Powers and Steven Carlson, forthcoming 2010

Indirect Copyright Liability and Technological Innovation Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, forthcoming 2009

Robert Mergespatents, intellectual property, economics, ethics, technology markets and valuation

reCent papers

Professor of Law Merges’s most important current project is “Justifying Intellectual Property,” a book to be published by Harvard University Press in 2010. A comprehensive statement of mature views on the ethical and economic foundations of IP law, the book reviews foundational philosophical theories of property (Locke, Kant, Hegel) and applies them to IP;

contemporary theories about distributive justice (e.g., John rawls) and applies them to IP; identifies operational high-level principles of IP law; and, with all this as background, works through several pressing problems facing IP law today. Merges is also pursuing follow-up research based on data collected in the Kauffman-Berkeley Patent Survey in 2008–2009.

Justifying IP: Chapter 2, Locke on Intellectual Property presentation at Berkeley Law, April 2009

The Future of Property: IP and Digital Content Zittrain Lecture, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, October 2008

Jason Schultz ’00 cyberlaw, computer law, copyright law, patent law, privacy

reCent papers

One of Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Schultz’s major research interests is the implications of open data sharing for personal privacy. While open sharing of proprietary data presents unprecedented possibilities for advancing knowledge and innovation, it heightens the probability of privacy violation. Schultz is specifically focusing on evaluating the existing data sharing models and

comparing them to IP-sharing models like open source and Creative Commons. Schultz is also investigating the civil liberties implications of cyber-obstinacy laws, which serve to enforce societal norms of “proper” behavior, and include cyber-bullying laws, click-through agreements, anti-hacking laws, and DrM-protection laws.

Privacy Problems in the Google Book Search Settlement The Google Books Settlement and the Future of Information Access, UC Berkeley School of Information, August 2009

Why Consumers Will Never Understand Most DRM FTC Town Hall on “Digital Rights Management Technologies and Consumer Protection,” University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA, March 2009

Suzanne Scotchmer intellectual property and r&D incentives, law and economics, public finance.

reCent papers

Professor of Law, Economics and Public Policy Scotchmer’s main research area is the economics, policy, and law of innovation, including intellectual property. She is focusing specifically on identifying the various origins of r&D investment ideas and the implications of each. In some arenas, such as pharmaceutical research, research paths and objectives are largely agreed on, but in other arenas, such as

internet innovations, the creative act is to identify a market niche or a way to fill one. Scotchmer has also published widely in economic theory and game theory.

Scarcity of Ideas and R&D Options: Use it, Lose it, or Bank it With Nisvan Erkal, NBER Working Paper 09-14940, 2009

Open Source Software: The New IP Paradigm With Stephen Mauer, Handbook of Economics and Information Systems, 2006

6 • BERkELEy CEnTER FoR LAW & TEChnoLogy 2009 annual bulletin

Talha Syed pharmaceutical patents, intellectual property, regulatory law and policy, normative legal theory

reCent papers

Assistant Professor of Law Syed’s current research focuses on patents and alternative innovation policies for pharmaceuticals, health care allocation and distribution, and normative legal theory. With co-author Terry Fisher, he is attempting to identify the most plausible package of reforms to patent protection, prizes, and regulatory incentive mechanisms for improving the social welfare associated

with the production of new medications. Additionally, he has been exploring the normative foundations of health and innovation policy in a number of papers that examine both the opportunities and limits presented by “cost-effectiveness analysis” as a regulatory tool to supplement market or economic-efficiency measures of social welfare.

Should a Prize System for Pharmaceuticals Require Patent Protection for Eligibility? Incentives for Global Health Discussion Paper No. 2, June 2009

A Prize Alternative as a Partial Solution to the Health Crisis in the Developing World With William W. Fisher, in Incentives for Global Health: Patent Law and Access to Essential Medicines, Cambridge University Press 2009; extended version

Molly S. Van houweling copyright, digital media, intellectual property, technology law

reCent papers

Assistant Professor of Law Van Houweling’s research focuses on copyright implications for new information technologies (and vice versa). One strand of her research explores how legal rules designed to regulate sophisticated commercial actors impact unsophisticated individuals who are empowered by information technology. Another strand explores how those

individuals are deploying copyright law themselves in ways that appear both to enrich and complicate the creative environment. She has a particular interest in the innovative licensing practices of the open source software community, Creative Commons, and the like.

Author Autonomy and Atomism in Copyright Law Virginia Law Review, forthcoming 2010

The New Servitudes Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 96, 2008

Paul M. Schwartz privacy, data security, cyberlaw, intellectual property

reCent papers

Professor of Law Schwartz’s scholarship focuses on how the law has sought to regulate and otherwise shape information technology, as well as the impact of information technology on law and democracy. At present, he is engaged in several different research projects, including comparative research into telecommunications surveillance law with a focus on developments in the U.S. and

Germany. He is also examining the emerging area of behavioral marketing and online advertising. Behavioral marketing draws on developments in neuroscience to heighten the results that marketing campaigns achieve; it also raises new privacy and ethical issues.

Preemption and Privacy Yale Law Journal, Vol. 118, 2009

Warrantless Wiretapping, FISA Reform, and the Lessons of Public Liberty: A Comment on Holmes’ Jorde Lecture California Law Review, Vol. 97, 2009

faCulty direCtors

PHO

TOG

rA

PHy

By

JIM

BLO

CK

(6x

)

howard Shelanski ’92administrative law and government regulation, antitrust, communications law, contracts

reCent papers

Professor of Law Shelanski recently took a leave of absence from Berkeley Law to teach at Georgetown Law. He remains affiliated with BCLT. He has since been appointed the deputy director for antitrust of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics. Shelanski’s research focuses include network neutrality and other aspects of telecomm-unications law and policy. He has written

numerous papers on the relationship between antitrust and regulation and on competition policy in high-technology markets.

Network Neutrality: Regulating with More Questions than Answers Journal of Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 6, 2007

Merger Analysis and the Treatment of Uncertainty: Should We Expect Better? With Michael Katz, Antitrust Law Journal, 2007

bclt@law.berkeley.edu www.bclt.berkeley.edu • 7

benefaCtors

Cooley Godward Kronish LLPCovington & Burling LLPChadbourne & Park LLPFenwick & West LLPKirkland & Ellis LLPLatham & Watkins LLPMorrison & Foerster LLPOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom LLP & Affiliates

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLPWilson Sonsini Goodrich & rosati PCWinston & Strawn LLP

members

Alston + Bird LLPBaker Botts LLPBingham McCutchen LLPDLA PiperDechert LLPFinnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Fish & richardson P.C.Goodwin Procter LLPGunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP

Haynes and Boone, LLPHickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP

Keker & Van Nest LLPKnobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLPMcDermott Will & EmeryMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPPerkins Coie LLPropes & Gray LLPSidley Austin LLP Sonnenschein Nath & rosenthal LLPTownsend and Townsend and Crew LLP

Van Pelt, yi and James LLPWhite & Case LLPWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP

patrons

Baker & McKenzieDurie Tangri Page Lemley roberts & Kent LLP

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

industry support

Apple, Inc.Cisco SystemsInflexion PointIntellectual Ventures, LLCIPotential, LLCMicrosoft CorporationMPAAOracle CorporationrambusrPx CorporationSAPTessera TechnologiesThinkFire Services USA, Ltd.Warner Bros.yahoo! Inc.

affiliated faCulty and sCholars

Aaron Edlin (Berkeley Law, Economics Department)

Joseph Farrell (Economics Department)

richard J. Gilbert (Haas School of Business, Economics Department)

Bronwyn H. Hall (Economics Department)

Thomas Jorde (Berkeley Law)Michael L. Katz (Haas School of Business, Economics Department)

David Mowery (Haas Business School)David Nimmer (UCLA)Daniel rubinfeld (Berkeley Law)AnnaLee Saxenian (iSchool, City and regional Planning)

Marjorie Shultz (Berkeley Law)Carl Shapiro (Haas School of Business, Economics Department)

Lon Sobel (Southwestern University)David Teece (Haas School of Business)

Hal r. Varian (iSchool, Haas School of Business, Economics Department)

David Winickoff (Division of Society & Environment)

affiliated programs

A Center for Correct, Usable, reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections (ACCUrATE)

Berkeley roundtable on the International Economy (BrIE), UC Berkeley

Berkeley Technology Law JournalCenter for Information Technology research in the Interests of Society (CITrIS), UC Berkeley

Center for Intellectual Property Studies, Gothenburg & Chalmers University of Technology

Competition Policy Center (CPC), Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

Haifa Center of Law & Technology (HCLT)

Institute for Information Law (IVir), University of Amsterdam

Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

Lester Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

Management of Technology Program, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

Samuelson Law, Technology, & Public Policy Clinic

School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS), UC Berkeley

Seoul National University Center for Law & Technology (SNU CLT)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH )

Team for research in Ubiquitous Secure Technology (TrUST)

sponsors and affiliates

Jennifer Urban ’00 copyright, intellectual property, privacy, licensing, emerging artists, biotech

reCent papers

Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Urban came to Berkeley Law from USC in 2009 and is a co-director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic. She presently is working on two research projects related to private ordering systems. Urban and co-author Laura Quilter are finishing a study to determine if DMCA Section 512 takedown notices are effectively balancing

legitimate copyright claims with the public’s interests in free expression and competition. With anthropologist Mimi Ito, she is studying the creative practices of American fans of Japanese anime as they relate to copyright and fairness. She is also working on a project related to lawyers, confidential information, and cloud computing.

Taking Down Critics and Competitors? Examining DMCA Section 512 Takedown Notices Sent to Internet Connectivity and Hosting Services With Laura Quilter, TPRC, forthcoming 2009

“Chilling Effects” or Efficient Process? Takedown Notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act With Laura Quilter, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Journal, 2006

Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Annual Bulletin

n Fourteenth Annual Symposium: Copyright@300

n When and Why Do Startups Patent?

n Patent Case Management guide for Judges

n new Law & Tech Faculty

bClt news and updates

Berkeley Center for Law & TechnologyUniversity of California, BerkeleySchool of Law2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 500Berkeley, CA 94705-7220

PRESORTED FIRST CLASS

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDUNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA