Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

More on Cha/Flamm and the californiastemcellreport

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

There are two comments on the californiastemcellreport post titled Flamm Wins Latest Round Against Korean Stem Cell Researcher, one of which is from
a spokesman for Dr. Cha who said, in part:

The [Los Angeles] Times quoted the editor of the Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology saying he was certain it was ?a case of multiple publication,? which is not plagiarism, and casts doubt on the truth of the plagiarism allegation.

IPBiz notes this is tricky. The editorial policy of Fertility & Sterility, in place at the time of the infraction, deemed plagiarism to fall within the scope of multiple publication. [One can view earlier IPBiz posts.] As far as the policy of Fertility & Sterility was concerned, this was plagiarism. As a separate matter, when authors copy the results of a first published paper into a second paper, without citing the first paper in the second paper, IPBiz considers that plagiarism.

The Cha spokesman also pointed out:

As we all now know, these causes for doubt in the L.A. Times article were borne out by the F&S editor?s subsequent retraction and apology in which he stated publicly: ?Considering the facts of the matter, I consider my references to ?plagiarism? and ?perjury? to be inaccurate and regrettable.?

The spokesman did NOT mention, that, at the relevant time, F&S, its parent, and the LA Times had been threatened with lawsuits by Cha.

The irony of the Flamm matter is that an individual (Flamm) ended up carrying the legal weight that F&S, its parent, and the LA Times declined to carry. Additionally,
the legal issues in the Flamm matter were a bit different than those that would have been confronted if the Fertility & Sterility people had gone to court.

As some additional matters, there is no federal crime, or tort, of plagiarism. There is a cause of action for copyright infringement in both the U.S. and South Korea. The Cha spokesman conspicuously avoided discussion of "what happened" as to copyright infringement in South Korea.

***
In passing, IPBiz does not distinguish much between the complaints discussed on
californiastemcellreport about CIRM taking "too much" credit for the myelofibrosis work (at UCSD) with californiastemcellreport giving "too much" credit to CIRM for Yamanaka.

See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/04/ky-chas-suit-against-flamm-tossed-by.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/response-of-sorts-to-don-c-reed-about.html

Full post as published by IPBiz on April 25, 2008 (boomark / email).