Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy Through Patent
As the cost of textbooks rises, students at higher education institutions are finding ways to minimize these expenses; students are buying used books, sharing with other students, finding cheap or free digital copies online, or deciding to forgo textbook purchases altogether. As a result the publishing industry is facing declining sales and decreased revenue.
On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patent #8195571 to Joseph Henry Vogel, an economics professor at the University of Puerto Rico-Río Piedras. Vogel’s patent is for a “Web-based system and method to capture and distribute royalties for access to copyrighted academic texts by preventing unauthorized access to discussion boards associated with copyrighted academic works.”
The system attempts to control copyright piracy by requiring a student to purchase a textbook with a unique code providing access to an online discussion board in which participation is a component of the student’s grade. Students that do not purchase the textbook and acquire the code receive a lower grade, although a student can still take advantage of second-hand or shared textbooks by purchasing a discounted access code from the publisher. Needless to say, the potential impact of Vogel’s system has produced divergent reactions.
Supporters for this patent recognize the negative impact of copyright piracy on the publishing industry and this system’s potential to correct existing industry problems. Recent survey data indicates students are purchasing fewer textbooks due to the rising cost of educational materials in higher education and the increased access to cheaper pirated copies online. As students purchase fewer textbooks, the academic community suffers from decreased publishing opportunities and royalties. Adoption of this system by publishers would prevent students from using pirated materials and allow the academic community to benefit from increased royalty revenue. Moreover, widespread use of a system that increases legal textbook purchases could have a decreasing effect on the price of textbooks in the long run.
Opponents to this system, however, contest the proposed benefit to the publishing industry based on its potential detriment to higher education objectives. The system’s impact on the affordability of higher education is a highly contentious issue as the cost of textbooks rises along with tuition rates in the United States. There is indication, however, that use of the patented system by the publishing industry would include discounted or waived access fees for students below a certain income level.
Critics have also expressed concern with the actual patent, suggesting that one-time use access codes in the video game industry could be considered prior art and that the four patent claims are broad and could easily fail the non-obvious test.
Additionally, there are concerns regarding the patent’s viability under copyright law. Under 17 U.S.C. §109, the first sale doctrine provides a distributive right to an individual that purchases a book. When a book is sold the copyright owner loses distributive interest in the book, allowing the purchaser to then resell the book, give the book away, rent the book out, or destroy the book. By requiring a student to purchase an access code for used textbooks, the publishers and authors would receive a profit from these subsequent sales, which exceeds the scope of a copyright owner’s distributive rights under the first sale doctrine.
The Copyright Act also includes specific exceptions to copyright infringement for educational purposes. Under 17 U.S.C. §110 there is no copyright infringement for nonprofit educational use of copyrighted material, while the fair use doctrine ensures that the use of copyrighted material for teaching, scholarship, and research are exempt from copyright infringement.
The relevant impact of this patent on the publishing industry, the academic community, and copyright law, however, depends on the implementation of Vogel’s system by publishers and instructors. As the demand for open educational resources increases, and websites such as Khan Academy and Open Culture grow in popularity, publishers may be hesitant to adopt a system that limits access to educational resources.


The article states that the patent "could easily fail the non-obvious test". Hmmm…How is it possible that the USPTO Board of Appeals and Interferences did not perceive the non-obvious test when it ruled in favor of the inventor on 21 November 2011? Are the bloggers more expert than the Board? In the second press release, linked above, the inventor states that the system encourages uploading of e-texts for fair use, inasmuch as the object of payment is the discussion board. So, how would the patent violate first sale doctrine?
Low and moderate-income students now pay for new and used books. Under the waiver, they would not pay for the access code and may even get access to a new edition should the publisher upload it for fair use. However, the most beneficial element of the web-based system for society is the most subtle: removing the temptation to pirate by financially stressed low and moderate-income students, principiis obsta .
Professor Vogel, while I appreciate your response to Ms. Zimmerman's article, I do have some concerns of my own, even ignoring the obvious stake you have in insuring that your students must purchase your online, co-authored textbooks.
First, the patent being disputed is merely a compilation of previously-established patents. Essentially, this patent re-appropriates the idea used in previous patents for multiplayer platform gaming and merely substitutes the content, in this case a forum for the discussion of academic topics. Even if we were to assume that your patent does not fail the non-obvious test (a big assumption as we shall see in a moment), it seems as though the principiis obsta patent merely combines two systems that have already been widely implemented.
Second, the infallible officers at the USPTO have been known to make mistakes. An easy example is their ignorance to the fact that Disney and Pixar had merged into a singular company. In the words of one writer, "never assume the obvious when dealing with the USPTO." From a common sense perspective, don't blindly assume that a governmental agency is always correct.
Third, the board that you are referring to is not a unified board, but rather 100 isolated agents who have no peer oversight or redundant analysis in legal issues. To put it simply, one board member ruling on a patent does not mean that the USPTO as a whole analyzed it. One USPTO board member is as capable of making a mistake as any doctor, lawyer, or professor when they examine a problem.
If I could make a suggestion about future conduct, I would urge you to have a puppet post on these topics, as identifying yourself as someone with no legal education and a clear agenda might be counter-productive to your purpose here.
[...] Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy … June 22, 2012 8:49 pm / Leave a Comment / grif Password Protecting Knowledge: Preventing Copyright Piracy … Students that do not purchase the textbook and acquire the code receive a lower … in higher education and the increased access to cheaper pirated copies online. …. Unfair Competition (3), app store (3), Disney (3), UK (3), warner brothers (3 … Read more on American University Intellectual Property Brief [...]