IP: FTC criticizes Database bill and research example

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:51:22 -0400
Reply-To: Lauren Gelman <gelman () ACM ORG>
Sender: ACM US Public Policy Committee <USACM () ACM ORG>


On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a 17-page letter discussing
serious flaws with the database section of the WIPO bill.  The FTC comments
focus on the competition concerns and the potential negative impact of
overprotection upon innovation.

It can be found at:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/9809/antipirabli.htm

Comments by DOJ on Constitutionality concerns can be found at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/doj-hr2652-memo.html

A letter from the Administration outlining general policy concerns can be
found at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/doj-s2291.html

Also,  here is another example of how the database bill may impact science:

Professor Adams, a cultural anthropologist, puts together a chapter for a
reviewed book on the medicinal uses of plants.  In his chapter Professor
Adams lays out a case for the use of a tree bark for treating certain kinds
of cancer.  His evidence includes initial toxicology screening of the bark
and the effectiveness of the bark when used as a treatment by a South
American tribe.  As a standard practice, the copyright of the book chapter
is signed over to the publisher.  Based on the new and provocative ideas
expressed in the book its sales are well beyond expectations. =20

Professor Bates, a biochemist with expertise in toxicology screening, reads
the book and is intrigued by Professor Adams idea and data.  Bates contacts
Adams, who readily shares the details of the toxicology screening with
Bates.  Professor Bates quickly notices that there is a subtle, but
distinct twist to the data.  Although Professor Adam=A2s claims are correct,
he overlooked a secondary effect which could cause bark derivatives to be
more harmful than helpful. =20

Under the provisions of Title V, before Professor Adams could even provide
the data to  Professor Bates for review, Professor Bates would have to get
a license to use the data  =AF from the publisher not Professor Adams.
Although the use of the data could stop potentially harmful experiments
from moving forward, the publisher would have every right stopping
Professor Bates from using the data in his interpretation since it could
directly harm the sale of the book.  This would force Professor Bates to
retrace the work and collect samples from South America and run the
screenings again.  If the samples were unique (say the tree had become
extinct since Professor Adams did his work) there would be no way to repeat
the experiments and Professor Bates would be prohibited from publishing his
work for 15 years.