The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Myriad Genetics today, just over 12 months since the case was last before the Supreme Court. Myriad was originally granted patents on gene sequences that were “isolated” from the human body.

After one trip to the Supreme Court, the composition claims to these gene patents are currently valid, even in light of the Mayo v. Prometheus holding that laws of nature are unpatentable subject matter. The Supreme Court granted cert on one very simple question that can’t be danced around: Are human genes patentable?

Will the Supreme Court end human gene patents after three decades? (14-Apr, via ArsTecnica)

Two recent articles on happenings in privacy law:

And three recent articles on happenings in copyright law:

It seems like there is going to come a point where technology will evolve beyond what humans are capable of controlling. Will there come a point where we realize that we shouldn’t trust ourselves with such power?

Here’s an interesting article from the BBC on some of the perils of mainstreamed augmented reality.

Real-world beaming: The risk of avatar and robot crime

For more information on augmented reality, and some great interactive discussion, check out Augmented Legality on LinkedIn, facilitated by our friend Brian Wassom

For two companies have been co-existing peacefully for the past few years, this could open a whole new can of worms.

…just in case you were wondering:

Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction case appealed to top US Court”:

(AFP) A case involving a fine over a “wardrobe malfunction” which exposed pop superstar Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast was appealed to the US Supreme Court Wednesday.
Court documents showed the Federal Communications asked the top US court to reimpose the fine on CBS television network in the long-running legal battle over indecency broadcast standards.

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) levied the $550,000 fine against CBS in 2006 for breaking indecency rules during a halftime performance by Jackson at the 2004 Super Bowl, the championship game of the National Football League.

The basis of the FCC’s appeal to the Supreme Court is the concept of “fleeting images”–should we hold networks accountable for a flash of something inappropriate? CBS wants an exception for nudity; the FCC wants to uphold the $550,000 fine it imposed upon the network.

The FCC claims that they’d allow an exception for fleeting expletives, but not for a flash of genitalia. Is there really a difference? Is this just about the money? Either way, I hope the Supreme Court takes this on–only because I really want to hear Justice Scalia’s reaction to the difference between a pop star’s nipple and a pop star’s dirty mouth.

Earlier today the Supreme Court issued its opinion for Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. The opinion invalidated method claims of a medical diagnostic patent and is likely to have a large influence on the biotech industry. Now, we just have to wait to find out if the Court will hear Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., another case that deals with patentability in the biotech industry.

At first glance, it appears that the Court conflates §§ 101, 102, and 103, instead of considering each independently. Be sure to check back for more analysis, but here are some other first looks:

The 271 Patent Blog: SCOTUS Speaks: Patents May Only be Invalidated Under “Clear and Convincing” Standard

Inventive Step: Supreme Court Continues to Confuse Patentable Subject Matter with Patentability

IP Wise: Prometheus Rebound

IPWatchdog: Killing Industry: The Supreme Court Blows Mayo v. Prometheus

Patently-O: Mayo v. Prometheus: Natural Process + Known Elements = Normally No Patent

Although the article focuses on a business-customer context, I find the suggestions in this article to apply with equal force to social networking in general.

I was forwarded an email with the following two articles attached. They’re worth the read if you’re interested in privacy, obviously, but with all the non-privacy we have going on today, they’re worth the read no matter what.

Unraveling Privacy: The Personal Prospectus & the Threat of a Full Disclosure Future by Scott R. Peppet

Against Notice Skepticism In Privacy (And Elsewhere) by M. Ryan Calo

The USPTO announced the new Patents for Humanity program. The program is meant to encourage development of technologies that can be used to “engage in humanitarian efforts.” Inventions in medical technology, food and nutrition, clean technology, and information technology are eligible to be reviewed and possibly selected for “accelerated processing of select patent USPTO matters.”

Will the program help?