Dow - NREL partnership

The partnership that has emerged between Dow and NREL is a good idea for the primary reason that chemical companies need to develop alternate feedstocks besides traditional petroleum ones. This partnership will demonstrate the feasibility of using alternate cellulosic biomass feedstocks, which should be able to reduce production costs. The benefits will be twofold. First, reduced production costs can be passed on to other businesses and consumers. Second, use of biomass feedstock will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Technology Review article about the partnership

Biofuels Independent Study - final draft

I received my JD back in May, and as part of my last semester courseload I wrote an independent study on the patentability of biofuels, entitled "A Patent-based Approach to Development and Commercialization of Cellulosic Biofuels." This is the introductory paragraph- I will publish more in the future.

Biofuels, which are fuels made from biomass feedstock, are the key to solving two prominent issues confronting the United States today. These are how to achieve energy independence and how to reduce carbon emissions. As world crude oil reserves and discoveries of major new sources of cheap crude oil decrease, reduced dependence on traditional petroleum sources becomes a necessity and a reality. As the supply of cheaply obtained crude oil becomes scarce, the price of such oil increases. The price increase makes other, previously more expensive, sources of fuel more economical. This includes alternatives to petroleum like biofuels made from biomass such as corn or cellulose. However, there are barriers to the introduction and use of biofuels and their replacement of traditional petroleum fuels.

There are two major problems with corn based ethanol: one is that it is ecologically unsustainable. To produce enough corn based ethanol to meet the United States's needs for transportation fuel, the land devoted to growing corn in this country would have to be allocated entirely to energy production needs, leaving none of that land for food or animal feedstock corn production. Second, the viability of corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel depends on direct government subsidies, which are economically unsustainable. When government subsidies abate, there will be insufficient economic incentive to continue producing corn-based ethanol.

Cellulose-based biofuels employ the same underlying concept of using a renewable resource to generate power, but benefit from a superior match between technology and patent law protectability than corn-based ethanol. Therefore, a shift should occur from corn-based ethanol to cellulose-based biofuel production based on patent protection. Patent protection is better for cellulose-based biofuels than for corn-based ethanol. The incentives to do further research are more extensive because patent law protects the investments that researchers make, while the basic aspects of the science are protected to allow research to continue. The patent system is configured to provide the necessary incentives to develop a cellulose-based biofuel industry, without the need for direct government subsidies. Development of patent law during the twentieth century led to a patent system that is tailored to allowing commercialization of research, while encouraging further innovation by protecting basic research techniques from monopolization.

Climate Change & the Law - class 12

Yesterday we had a guest lecturer, John Fillo, who is a chemical engineer/ accountant/ consultant for an environmental compliance company in the Pittsburgh area. He spoke about climate change policies within large companies, which means that he is helping these profit motivated entities take climate change into consideration, and help change the way they do business. It was very interesting to hear what he thought the 'tenets of carbon strategy' were - such as setting goals, corporate governance, methods for carbon neutrality like sequestration or credit trading, and legislative advocacy. He also went through case studies about BP, GE, Caterpillar, and a lot of others, and discussed how each had strengths and weaknesses of dealing with Climate Change. BP had the highest 'score' - did you know they have an internal credit trading scheme?

Global Climate Change - Class 1

This semester, my last at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, I am taking the class "Climate Change and the Law" taught by Prof. Jennifer Smokelin, Esq. (adjunct, practitioner at Reed Smith LLP). Since this class corresponds with my blog topic, I will post my notes from class - hopefully in a cleaned up and understandable form.

The 3 main topics we will cover are:

1. science of climate change and technologies to mitigate effects


2. climate change control systems & regulation (at the international and national levels); the components of a successful system


3. US law in regards to climate change - in the absence of specific regulation, what can be done using existing law; [and if there is time] international litigation

The question which is hoped will be answered by addressing these topics hopes is how lawyers can add value to a discussion of problems associated with climate change, through an understanding of climate change.

We will refer to climate change and global warming as 'global climate destabilization'

There are 6 factors that need to be affirmatively answered to make global climate destabilization an issue capable of regulation:
A. There must be an identified issue or problem
B. The issue/ problem must be defined by someone
C. Human action must be the cause of the problem
D. Can and should humans address the problem
E. Who can address the problem
F. When can it be addressed, and how much will it cost

Addressing each of these factors:

A. Is there an issue/ problem?

• For complete affirmation, we must be able to prove that there is climate change
  
• Climate change can be looked at globally, but effects are felt locally (and is really how people determine if there is a problem)
  
• For instance here in pgh there is no definite problem because people are happy with the unseasonably warm weather!
  

B. Defining the problem

• define 'climate' - long term weather patterns
• define 'change' - not the same as what has happened before

how do we know that there is climate change?

• is there a certain period of time over which we look?
• it is difficult to define the terms and what they entail
• global climate destabilization is a better way to describe climate change because it is not an ambiguous description
  

Implications of this difficulty:

• since there are different climates around the world, there are different interests regarding climate change
  
• lack of consensus
• there must be 'buy in' by the relevant population (such as politicians who can institute regulatory changes)

Issues in proposal & new sources

Issues raised in proposal:

-- commons-based strategies for (i) developing and (ii) managing technology-based innovation

-- the economics of infrastructure resources

-- the economics and dynamics of university-based research and technology transfer

-- application of each of the above to a specific example: development of AETs

-- contrasts with strategies for developing and distributing new pharmaceuticals to developing countries (it's not clear to me what this has to do with the research proposal; you might consider dropping it altogether, since you already have a lot on your plate)

Read some core existing research in each of the top three areas above
- commons -- read Benkler's book The Wealth of Networks, and familiarize yourself with the work of Elinor Ostrom;
- infrastructure -- read a law review article in the Minnesota Law Review by Brett Frischmann
- on university-based tech transfer, take a look at a recent article in the Berkeley Technology Law Review by Sean O'Connor. Mark Lemley has also written something about this recently, online at ssrn.com rather than in print.

Revise the proposal to take out some of the rhetorical introduction about the environmental problems;
- the AET idea is best presented as a proof-of-concept application of the underlying theoretical framework.
- Describe what tech transfer does today, why it fails for certain kinds of research, what a better policy and strategy would be for that kind of research, and why AET is a good example of the kind of research for which that new policy and stratey is suited.

Duke & BIOS

a better analogy than the generic drug analogy may be to a commons-based licensing approach that has been proposed in the biotech area (a/k/a "open source biotech").

Prof. Arti Rai at Duke Law has written about this. http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/rai/

Some Austrailian academics are also working on this under the acronym "BIOS".

Beginnings of research.. a proposal for commons-based licensing of AET developed at universities

Research Proposal

Global climate change is a significant challenge which the entire world must face as the polar ice caps melt, ocean levels rise, weather patterns change and create catastrophic events like hurricanes and droughts. Part of what causes global climate change is the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, from sources like fossil-fuel burning power plants and automobiles. The introduction and use of alternative energy technologies (AET) such as wind, solar and bio-fuels help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies are often patented or proprietary, and may not be developed to the extent that is necessary considering the public interest in preserving the global ecosystem. Under-development can be attributed to the cost of licensing patented inventions compared or a company owning a patent but not having an economic incentive to develop that invention.

One way to address the problem of AET availability is to encourage the use of a commons-based approach to technology transfer and licensing in universities. While some AET are developed and patented within corporations, many are developed during the university research. These inventions may then be patented and licensed to outside companies, or else the university may create a start-up company to commercialize the technology. The goal of developing AET should not be pure profit for single entities, but instead broad availability to encourage creating a sound infrastructure of AET.

The argument for AET availability is similar to that regarding genericization of patented drugs which are essential to public health in poor nations. The barriers to entry created by exclusivity-based pricing inhibit companies from marketing cheap drugs in poor nations. Universities should reduce these barriers to access by changing their licensing structure to allow freedom to operate agreements, so a generic drug producer can market lower-priced drugs. The AET situation is different than the generic drug problem because technology is not provided directly to consumers, but to companies which further develop the technology – such as improving the infrastructure for providing alternative energy to consumers.

Eliminating barriers to entry is still essential to ensuring access to technology, though. If university technology transfer is limited to giving rights to a patented AET to single entities to encourage its commercialization, traditional patent property rights will govern. The single entity has the right to frustrate market entry by enforcing its patent rights against others. If a university uses a commons-based approach to AET licensing, it could allow many more entities to participate in developing products based on the AET. The commons-based approach is distinct from not patenting the AET though: the AET is patented, but licenses can be structured so various entities may develop products based on the technology without fear of infringing. Maintaining patent protection for the AET creates a basis for coordination, and will draw together many complementary users and encourage negotiation to develop commercial products.

My research would investigate developing a commons-based licensing system. Once a feasible system is developed, I want to create a proposal to submit to research-centered universities to encourage adoption of the scheme and participate in its implementation.