Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
lr:LLLLc:LAL FFCFEFTAY
As I mentioned in class, you can expect questions involving gray areas of law,
the relationship between different regimes, and the challenge of creating new IP
rules. I place a premium on careful, lawyerly analysis and well-crafted writing.
CRlclre ArL FA:lcrALL lcR lF LAve.
1urisdictional:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact patent and
copyright laws. 1he Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) is the basis for
Congress's regulation of trademarks and unfair competition.
1he states retain concurrent jurisdiction to regulate IP under the 1
th
amendment to the
Constitution.
Rationales:
Most Intellectual property doctrines are craIted to balance two potentially conIlicting goals:
1. To provide a incentive to create by giving creators property rights in their creative interests,
and
2. To leave competitors and the public suIIicient access to products oI creativity to ensure a
continuing Ilow oI inventions and works oI authorship in the Iuture and too ensure a competitive
marketplace.
AKA IP, provides property rights to creators, but careIully limits those rights, tailoring the rights
so that they provide the necessary incentive to create, but do not interIere unduly with the public
domain, competition, and scientiIic and intellectual progress.
5 Regimes:
1. Trade secret (protects inIormation oI economic value)
Subject to: reasonable eIIorts under circumstances to maintain secrecy, state law
regimes
Issues: one disclosed the protection is lost, problems oI theIt or violation oI
secrecy
2. Trademark / Trade dress (protects any word, symbol, or device adopted to
identiIy/distinguish Irom others, protects marketplace so less conIusion)
Subject to: est. by Lanham Act, protection through use or registration w/
procedural and remedial advantages
Issues: product must live up to reputation Ior ppl to pay premium, Ireeriders
3. Copyright (exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perIorm, display, or license
work)
2
Subject to: in tangible medium oI expression, Copyright Act oI 1976, protection
limited in time and Iair use exceptions
4. Patent (rights Ior any new/useIul process, machine, manuIacture or composition oI
nature)
Subject to: Patent Act requires Iiling description and application w/ P & TM
OIIice, must be w/in subject matter, utility/novelty/non-obviousness
5. Rights oI Publicity (grants exclusive control over commercial use oI identity,
name/likeness/perIorming style, protected under CL rights or state statutes)
Theories:
1. atural Rights (Locke) labor oI body mixed w/ nature his property, no common
right by others
Issues: some ppl don`t work hard
2. Personality/Personhood (Hegel) not all property is the same (ex: casebook v.
computer notes), diII. relationships with diII. kinds oI property, means and
Iorms oI expression requires protection oI identity
Issues: very little attachment to what is made, what kind oI generalizations can be
made?
3. Utilitarian/Economic Incentive (Bentham) promote innovation and creativity,
public good disseminated and want to encourage investment in production
oI new ideas/works, IP rights limited in scope, duration, and eIIect to
balance costs and beneIits.
Issues: ppl want to use things without having ownership over it, too much
dependence on ppl to create things, high licensing Iees
r|vate r|ghts] ub||c Goods
O 1ragedy of Lhe commons analogy (lLs ln all our beneflLs Lo exhausL Lhe common buL lf
were all self servlng Lhe common wlll evenLually be exLlngulshed )
O 1enslon beLween Lhe Lwo golng Lo spend a lncredlble amounL of Llme on Lhls Loplc
O omeLhlng dlsLlncLlve abouL l LhaL makes Lhls parLlcularly dlfflculL Lo do
O reerldlng boLh good and bad
O enclng cosLs we can halL new forms of knowledge by Loo hlgh fenclng cosLs
nd ended Class with this.
evlslL our Lhree Lhemes
1 ,ulLlpllclLy
l ub[ecL ,aLLer eglmes
1 ,a[or reglmes
a Landard reglme proLecLlons
b AlLered reglme proLecLlons
l narrow
1 vAA
2 harmaceuLlcles
ll 8road
1 1,
2 1rade dress
c Covered buL noL lncluded (lns v ap)
2 Cb[ecL speclflc reglmes (boaL hulls mlcroprocessors)
ll roLecLlon
1 roLecLlon
2 LxcepLlon
a alr use
l arody
ll CLher excepLlons
lll LvldenLlary Landards
1 vlcLorla secreL (poLenLlal harm probable harm eLc)
lv ulfferenL LlmlLaLlons
1 ub[ecL maLLer
a uncLlonallLy `
b ldea/expresslon dlchoLomy (C)
v 1lme
1 re publlcaLlon
2 osL publlcaLlon
vl ources of Law
1 1reaLles
2 Common law
LaLe law
4 ederal law
3 ConLracL laws
vll !urlsdlcLlons
1 ederal clrculL
2 LaLe courL
lnLernaLlonal courL
vlll reempLlon and Lypes of law cholces
lx ,ulLlple meLhods of ollclng
2 !usLlflcaLlons
l Labor (loch)
1 1rade secreLs
ll ersonallLy (Pegel)
1 ersonallLy
2 vAA
lghLs of ubllclLy
lll uLlllLarlan (8enLham)
1 aLenLs
lv WlLh every [usLlflcaLlon Lhere ls a reason Lo noL follow Pow can we make Lhe susLem flL Lhe [usLlflcaLlons beLLer
rlvaLe rlghLs v ubllc goods
l ueLermlne where Lhe llnes wlll be drawn
1 ee falr use
4 Lvery l quesLlon ls ulLlmaLely a pollcy quesLlon need Lo make a declslon abouL whaL ls proLecLed and whaL ls noL
FAIR U5E I5 A JUDICIALY CON5TRUCTED tnn!.
Evcn If It's In statuc, faIr usc Is a!ways a judIcIa! cnnstructcd mcchanIsm.
ln 1988 we slgned 8erne ConvenLlon maklng us recognlze lnLernaLlonal lnLellecLual properLy rlghLs
troductory Cases
- v A
lssue ls Lhere a properLy rlghL ln Lhe news? ls Lhls mlsapproprlaLlon unfalr compeLlLlon?
4
roblems w/ news noL 1rade ecreL (publlc evenL noL prlvaLe) no C b/c can'L proLecL facLs can'L
reglsLer b/c news ls Llme senslLlve don'L wanL free rlders Lo geL away no lncenLlve Lo lnvesL ln news
don'L wanL Lo reward Lhe 1
sL
reporLer Lhe rlghL Lo spread news (monopoly)
unLll reglsLered proLecLed under CL buL once publlshed lose CL proLecLlon and no rlghLs under
C AcL of 1909
fllllng gap by creaLlng an l rule b/c news lsn'L lncluded ln mlsapproprlaLlon
Poldlng Cuasl properLy rlghL (noL a rlghL a/g world buL b/w 2 compeLlLors)
! lLney wanL Lo provlde quasl rlghL b/c labor [usLlflcaLlon (Locke)
! Polmes properLy rlghL ln repuLaLlon (personallLy) noL recelvlng credlL remedy should be
ln[uncLlon and aLLrlbuLlon
! 8randels no rlghL ln Lhe news b/c facLs and llLLle orlglnallLy leglslaLure's declslon noL Lo
provlde proLecLlon would wanL a poslLlve law u Look news from open markeL
avors moneLary damages all l should be uLlllLarlan need sLaLuLory lnLervenLlon
$ears/Compco
($tate unfair competition claims to prohibit defendants from copying unpatentable articles of
commerce were preempted.)
Congress attempted to balance two competing interests in enacting patent laws:
1. Provide a incentive to invent by giving property rights in inventions and designs and
2. Fostering free competition by allowing competitors to copy others inventions and ideas and build
on them.
This ensured that inventions and designs that did not meet the high standards of patentability went
to the public domain, WHERE OTHER$ M FREEL COP THEM.
The state by prohibiting the copying of the public domain type inventions and designs
interfered with Congress`s purpose thus must be preempted by $upremacy Clause.
Several ways to approach this design: Why would a patent be unavailable??
1.II someone sleeps on their rights is mechanism one.
2. Design is obvious. ot suIIiciently original. Does not meet threshold Ior protection.
3. May have Iell into the public domain, original patent or article expired, or design is already in public
realm.
In this case. there`s two types oI patents, utility patents (inventions) and design patents (protects
original designs).
II it`s Iunctional we don`t want to protect it with design patent, but iI not original enough we don`t apply
utility patent so things can potentially Iall between the cracks.
3
The court says here that legislative body can only aIIord that sort oI protection. For court to make this, it
would undercut in some Iashion the Iederal patent act.
So the patent act has two Iunctions, one it tells you what is patentable, and secondly it tells your what
YOU CAOT protect because its already within the public domain. ThereIore it deIines the boundaries
oI the public domain as deIined by the patent act.
Black is using the utilitarian theory justiIication just like Brandies in the IS case.
We are all equal Iree riders once (the lamp) is out in the public domain says Black, and additionally the
Iree riders can provide expensive things Ior much cheaper. There is a economic good oI multiple people
making this design which is available in the public domain.
Preemption based on three prongs;
1. $tate law interferes with goals of federal law, federal law sets a
bar for patents that needs to be met, state laws undercut it does
their shot down when in court.
2. Federal Law establishes public domain.
3. Federal Law provides conformity and unanimity of the rules
which govern IP.
uncLlonlng/goal of federal sysLem (anyLhlng lefL should be ln publlc domaln)
lf canL geL lL paLenLable b/c doesn'L meeL Lhreshold shouldn'L be proLecLable noL come up
wlLh sLaLe law sysLem on unfalr compeLlLlon
*so whaL ls lefL can creaLe sysLem (long Lerm cohablLaLlon proLecL consumer lnsLead of producer
preempLed from exempLlon) overly expanslve of earsCompco wouldn'L allow 1u
onito oats v. Thunder
'the plug molding process Ior copying boats.
Whats troubling the court in this one, is the protection oI producers rather than consumers. Carves out
exception, Dicta rather than decision is more important. Follows sears/compco in decision but carves out
role Ior states to have in regulation oI IP policy.
State statue Iailed under balancing act put Iorth in Sears Compco.
ReaIIirmed three part test Irom Kewanne Oil as well.
In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act included the vessel hull protection act.
The V.H.P.A. protects original vessel hull designs, which are the results oI a artists creative endeavor and
diIIers Irom past designs in more than a trivial sense. Mildly distinguishable. Gets a 10 year patent, in
comparison to 14 years design, and 20 year utility patent. Trademark is liIetime but that`s pretty damn
hard.
rusLraLes C and aLenL's purpose of creaLlng naLlonal unlformlLy lf meeL requlremenLs (novelLy
usefulness nonobvlousness) rewarded w/ Lemporary monopoly all oLhers may be explolLed by publlc
L would granL monopoly Lo unpaLenLed deslgn
ueclslon prompLed Congress Lo creaLe vessell noll Act
1rles Lo llmlL eotscompco b/c lL ls Loo general/overreachlng
W/ dlfferenL sLaLe laws would creaLe forum shopplng
CreaLes excepLlon Lo preempLlon when Lhe purpose of Lhe sLaLe sLaLuLe ls Lo prevenL
confuslon raLher Lhan expand l proLecLlon sLaLe can creaLe mlsapproprlaLlon law and
federal law doesn'L desLroy ALL of sLaLes rlghLs (when sLaLes creaLe mlsapproprlaLlon law
Lhere ls no dlrecL proLecLlon under C/paLenL laws)
vessel Pull roLecLlon AcL (parL of u,CA)
Low Lhreshold [usL make lL falrly dlfferenL
lower 10 yr proLecLlon provldes excluslve rlghLs 's burden Lo prove orlglnallLy of deslgn
proLecLlon losL lf noL reglsLered w/ln 2 yrs lL ls publlc
noLlce requlremenL
LxcepLlon Lo lnfrlngemenL slmllar Lo falr use (Leachlng or analysls)
coo Jo tbls w/ otbet sobject mottets cteotes mlol ptopetty teqlme (ex fosbloo Jeslqo
ptotectloo oct)
FOR $TTE LW TO $&RVIVE PREMPTION PROLEM$. It may survive if:
-the protection is limited I nscope, so that the level oI interIerence with Congress`s purpose can be
characterized as slight
-ideas that are already in the public domain are not withdrawn: and
- the state law is intended to promote a legitimate state police power goal outside the sphere oI
Congress`s concern when it enacted the patent laws.
TRALL GLcRL: LAv.
8ackground uevelopmenL nolf ltopetty low ooJ 1ott low w/ some ctlmlool poolsbmeot
dlsclosure of a 1 was LradlLlonally a CL 1orL
adhere Lo l agreemenL ln uruguay CA11 Ceneral agreemenL on 1arlffs and 1rade and 1l 1rade
elaLed AspecLs of l lghLs
,odel LaLe sLaLuLe ls Lhe D|form 1rade ecret Act (D1A) enacLed by 40 sLaLes and uC
1 per soy /ist formula paLLern compllaLlon program devlce meLhod Lechnlque process of
lndependenL economlc value and reasonable efforLs Lo keep secreL
esLaLemenL of unfalr CompeLlLlon 9 valuable economlc advanLage over oLhers (le cusLomer llsLs)
dlff companles can have same lnformaLlon and each proLecL lL as a 1
esLaLemenL of 1orLs (199) facLors ln deLermlnlng wheLher lL's a 1
1 exLenL lnfo ls known ouLslde of buslness 2 exLenL known Lo employees or oLhers ln buslness
exLenL of securlLy measures 4 value of lnfo Lo buslness/compeLlLors 3 amounL of
efforL/money spenL ease or dlfflculLy Lhe lnfo can be acqulred by oLhers (tokeo by lmptopet
meoos)
*,u|t|p||c|ty of statutes Common Law sLaLuLe esLaLemenL of 1orLs 199 unlform 1rade ecreL AcL of
199 esLaLemenL of unfalr CompeLlLlon (199) ederal Lsplonage AcL of 199 (federal 1 acL)
dlffernece b/w u1A and of unfalr CompeLlLlon ls Lhe oJvootoqe of koowloq wbot oot to Jo
ls noL proLecLed under u1A buL under of unfalr C (dead end lnformaLlon)
*shorLcuLs may be efflclenL!
sp|oage Act federallzes crlme of mlsapproprlaLlon (10yrs ln prlslon 13 yrs lf forelgn enLlLy $3
mllllon flne) w/ broadesL deflnlLlon of 1 and mlsapproprlaLlon w/ harshesL penalLy (Lo make lL
easy Lo covlcL)
a Who does lL apply Lo? Lveryone
b CourL lnLervenLlon? Crlmlnal offense
c LxcepLlons? noL really all Lhe cases can apply 8u1 Congress only auLhorlzed
ALLorney Ceneral Lo allow a lawyer Lo use Lhls Lo sue by approval (worrlsome b/c
sub[ecL Lo admlnlsLraLlve declslon)
,u|t|p||cty of Doctr|es 1orL roperLy Crlmlnal Law ConLracL Law
8a|ac|g Act Commerclal eLhlcs v lnhlblLlng compeLlLlon eward for research v LlmlLed lnnovaLlon
8
LlemenLs for 1rade ecreL Clalm
1 ub[ecL maLLer (Lype of lnformaLlon) musL be valuable (noL commonly known Lrade/lndusLry
lnfo)
2 Look reasonable precauLlons Lo prevenL dlsclosure
u/Lmployee acqulred lnfo wrongfully mlsapproprlaLlon (lmplled or expllclL duLy by k Lo proLecL
employer's lnLeresL)
Pow ls Lhls a secreL? Lvldence of a ecreL
1 ls lL generally known? 1o oLhers or ln an lndusLry? (experL wlLness can help)
2 Any securlLy measures? AfflrmaLlve acL LhaL lL ls a secreL? (hldden from publlc w/ measures
LhaL cosL money)
Pow much dlsclosure? (musL have a reason for llmlLed dlsclosure)
4 Legal ,echanlsms (covenanLs noL Lo compeLe confldenLlallLy agreemenLs bollerplaLe
agreemenLs)
3 esponse Lo ,lsapproprlaLlon (expenslve Lo sue)
Lvldence of value of ecreL
*necessary Lo show value b/c courLs wlll have many cases where ppl are [usL Lrylng Lo geL moneLary
remedles w/ meanlngless cases no emoLlonal ln[ury prove Lhrough physlcal ln[ury of loss of value
(unllke 1orLs)
1 LxperL LesLlmony
2 CosLs of research and Lo lnvenL producL
Llcenslng by oLhers (noL generally known deslrable for a value Lo oLhers)
4 roLecLlon cosLs
3 lmproper acqulslLlon lLself (LhefL shows lLs valuable)
2 1heorles (parLly complemenLary)
1 uLlllLarlan (encourages lnvesLmenL 1 ls a form of properLy)
2 1orL 1heory (deLerrence of wrongful acLs punlsh and prevenL llllclL behavlor hold Lo reasonable
sLandards of commerclal behavlor)
klnd of promoLes lnvesLmenL by LhreaLenlng breach of duLy
ulsclosure
1 owner publlshes secreL ln academlc [ournal/forum
9
2 dlscloses secreL by selllng producL LhaL embodles secreL
lnspecLlon of commerclally avallable producL
4 when applylng for paLenL publlcaLlon of paLenL appllcaLlon ls a dlsclosure requlremenL even lf
re[ecLed (omeone can read and make your 1 and make lL paLenLable and sue you Lhough you
lnvenLed lL)
*ltst loveotot uefeose Act (1999) ptovlJes offltmotlve Jefeose fot someooe lotet soloq
yoo fot tbe loveotloo of tbe 1
3 publlcly dlsclosed by anoLher person (ex 2 owners no conLrol over oLher)
dlsclosed lnadverLenLly (ex lefL on Lraln ln publlc vlew)
CovL requlres dlsclosure of 1 Lo serve soclal purposes buL provldes compensaLlon
4 Ways Lo proLecL l
1 make lL dlfflculL Lo copy
2 vlgllanL securlLy
prlvaLe k
4 pre say rules (2/rds)
trade secret is information that (1) derives actual or potential economic
value from the fact that it is not known or readily ascertainable by others and
(2) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
Trade secret: May consist oI any Iormula, patter, device, or compilation oI inIormation which is
used in one`s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who
do not know or use it. it may be a chemical compound, a process oI manuIacturing, treating or preserving
materials, a pattern Ior a machine or other device or a list oI customers
$ource of Law: State Statues (i.e. UniIorm Trade Secrets Act, and common law.
Trade $ecrets have three functions;
1. Pre-patent- how you protect something beIore acquiring a patent. It`s important because you
need something to protect until your patent either goes through or is applied Ior. Can also act as a
patent oI sorts, provide a conservative deIense against a patent claim. Cheaper, easier, protects a
mess oI things makes it easier then obtaining a multitude oI patents.
2. Fills the gaps in IP law. It`s the common law gap Iiller. Provides protection besides patent Ior
keeping ideas, concepts, property your own.
3. The envelope Ior trust. It`s the system oI trust in a company. Helps to Ioster trust between
employer and employee a la the dilemmas saw in Pepsi Co v. Redmond.
4. 1rade secreL ls creaLlng rlghLs agalnsL people who mlsapproprlaLe LhaL lnformaLlon
1he Lrade secreL ls proLecLlon agalnsL someone mlsapproprlaLlng (aka Lhe preproLecLlon ln ln
above
10
Factors to consider in determining trade secret status:
- how widely the inIormation is known outside the claimants business
-who within the claimants company knows the inIormation
-whether the claimant has taken reasonable measures to ensure that the inIormation remains secret
-how diIIicult it would be Ior others properly to acquire or duplicate the inIormation
-whether the inIormation gives the claimants a commercial, competitive advantage over others who do
not know it: and
-how much eIIort or money the claimant expended in developing or acquiring the inIormation.
When acquisition, use, or disclosure of a trade secret constitutes an actionable
misappropriation (when situations are truly people fucking up):
-Disclosure or use oI a trade secret in breach oI conIidence
aka breaking attorney/client privilege, using or telling someone secret acquired through that privilege.
-Disclosure or use oI a trade secret learned Irom a third party with notice
II A reveals to B imposing a duty oI conIidentiality and B Iucks up and tells C, C has duty not to use or
disclose the secret. C will be deemed to have notice oI this iI a reasonable person under similar
circumstances would know it, or iI reasonable person would be led to make Iurther inquiry and a
reasonable inquiry would reveal it.
-Disclosure or use oI a trade secret learned by mistake
Same reasonable person standard Ior having notice.
-Continued disclosure or use a trade secret aIter receipt oI notice
-Disclosure or use a trade secret acquired through improper means
Improper means includes illegal conduct, or conduct that is below generally accepted standards oI
commercial morality.
-Acquisition, disclosure or use oI a trade seceret with notice that the provider acquired it through
improper means.
-The eIIect oI the deIendants modiIication oI the plaintiII`s trade seceret
A modiIication or improvement on [ trade secret beIore using or disclosing will not relieve Irom
liability as long as [ can demonstrate that inIo was 'substantially derived Irom [ trade secret.
11
Cases:
etallurgical Industries Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc (198) (zinc furnace modifications)
Issues: Can a TS holder divulge inIo to a limited extent w/out destroying protection oI TS?
Litigate: diversity action Ior misappropriation oI TS
Problems: M. spent lots oI time/$/energy to modiIy Iurnaces and took security measures to conceal Iurnace w/
restricted authorization, signs oI restricted access, P couldn`t recoup security costs iI competitors already knew oI
inIormation
Holding: P`s modiIications are unknown to industry
Secrecy doesn`t have to be absolute, but TS is not protected by public revelation, limited disclosure
does not destroy rights
Distinctions: not public announcements and only 2 disclosures to Iurther economic interest (building
Iurnace, license aggreement)
Prevention: bad lawyering Ior not having Fourtek sign any conIidentiality agreement.
#ockwell Craphic v. DEJ (1991)
Issue: whether R`s eIIorts to keep piece part drawing secret were suIIicient to keep it a TS?
Litigate: violated conIidentiality agreement by stealing 100 piece part drawings, TS cases are like breach oI tort w/
assault w/ many punches b/c can litigate many at once, but CR law would try each case oI inIringement separately
Problems: R. manuIactures both printing presses and replacement parts (most proIitable) but had agreement not
strictly enIorced on return oI drawings b/c usually reorder parts
Holding: protection oI TS must be reasonably deIined by business models, b/c limited outsiders know TS this does
not IorIeit protection
DEV entitled to property iI lawIully obtained by another (unlike Metallurgical) OR iI P abandons
property
2 reasons Ior TS protection: deter unIair transIer oI wealth by proving wrongIul act (probability oI
getting drawings w/out wrongIul act is small, presumption) AD protecting Iruits oI labor
(nonproductive Ireeriding)
Balancing oI costs and beneIits varies and requires case-by-case analysis
II owners have to take great measures oI security, reduces incentives to invest in resources to create
more eIIiciency
Lack oI vigilance will shiIt TS to public domain (like Sears-Compco) disclosure by lax security
Don`t have to consider iI they are substantially similar b/c they are ROCKY
characters!
Cannot claim CR protection Ior non-inIringing portions 103(a) caselaw doesn`t
grant protection Ior any part oI inIringing derivate work
c. Means of Protection: Databases, New Technologies, 1oint Works,
and Work-Made for Hire.
A81kAC1C-]L1kA1C- 11 lLs very slmllar Lo Pand LesL
We Lhen remove whaL ls noL proLecLable (Lhe fllLraLlon) and Lhen we compare wlLh Lhe proLecLed
maLerlal (comparlslon) Lo see whaL has been Laken or noL
When Lhey go Lo Lhe clean room Lhey reverse englneer Lhe program
AbsLracLlon 1o AscerLaln ubsLanLlal lmllarlLy CourLs lrsL 8reak uown Lhe Allegedly lnfrlnglng
rogram lnLo lLs LrucLural arLs
llLraLlon nexL CourLs Lxamlne Lach arL for lncorporaLed ldeas (,erger) necessary Lxpresslon
(cenes a alre) and LlemenLs 1aken rom Lhe ubllc uomaln (ubllc uomaln)
Comparlson lnally AfLer lfLlng CuL All of Lhe nonroLecLlble ,aLerlal CourLs Compare Lhe
emalnlng nuggeLs of CreaLlve Lxpresslon for ubsLanLlal lmllarlLy
1he AC LesL polses a problem because Lhe argumenL wlll conLlnue over whaL level should we absLracL
Lawyers for once slde wlll say one Lhlng and lawyers for Lhe oLher slde wlll choose a separaLe one
uependlng on whlch slde prevalls wlll depend where case wlll fall on ldea/expresslon dlchoLomy
Cases:
1ension b/w logical and creation/invention
Feist Publications v. #ural 1elephone Service (1991)
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL
roblems elsL copled Lelephone dlrecLory bad falLh b/c ural refused Lo llcense llsLlngs and lacks
subscrlber lnformaLlon
Poldlng locts ore not ckob/e compi/otion of focts must be creotive to qet ck protection
ural doesn'L meeL even low level of requlred creaLlvlLy/orlglnallLy for C proLecLlon of
facLual compllaLlons (order/arrangemenL ls loglcal)
lf compllaLlon ls Cable doesn'L mean every elemenL of work ls proLecLed (C proLecLlon for
compllaLlon of facLs ls Lhln)
AppllcaLlon ls elsL a free rlder? (ls Laklng someone's work or bulldlng on lL?)
As adverLlsers apply only Lo ural lf you have a small markeL can apply Lo lf you markeL ls blggerwhy
boLher paylng a llcenslng fee [usL Lake lnformaLlon from ural (mlghL noL promoLe llcenslng) could
band LogeLher Lo creaLe larger alllance b/w all oLher 11 counLles
and 101 ls Lhe only one LhaL Wllf ls comforLable wlLh
CourL's ConsLlLuLlonal ,lnlmal Ld
slne qua non of C ls orlglnallLy
wlLh a compllaLlon you can creaLe someLhlng dld noL reach LhaL Lhreshold
hadow Cases
Jest v nypetlow (use Cu oms lnsLead of daLabases WesL clalm lnfrlngemenL of sLar paglnaLlon
sysLem elecLronlc noLlce of page breaks no Pead noLes or keynoLes) blue booklng ls noL C
headnoLes and oLher are noL creaLlve
Lxamples
Mlcbello olJe of testootoots ls Lhls enough auLhorshlp? aLlng resLauranLs and hoLels
oploloo ot focts? experLs? Crdlnary lay person resLauranL crlLlc?
3 sLar raLlng w/ pool and meeLlng room?
lf seL crlLerla ls Lhere anyLhlng orlglnal?
1 facL based analysls of how Lhe gulde ls puL LogeLher
2 Lhe more mechanlsLlc Lhe producLlon Lhe less proLecLable
lL wlll be someLhlng you could Lake a yellow hlghllghLer and flnd whaL ls C proLecLable vs
unproLecLable (llke prlces of food slmply gaLherlng)
*ln C unllke 1, we murder Lo dlssecL Lake aparL and flnd parLs LhaL are noL Cable
Lotus v. Borland (1996) (Method of operation)
Issue: whether Lotus` 123 menu structure is CRable subject matter?
Litigate: CR inIringement, permanent injunction, B claims aIIirmative deIense oI laches and estoppel
4
Problems: identical copy oI accounting Iunctions on computer w/ simple menu commands like
Copy/Print/Quit, when user creates macro (series oI commands to shorten time) can use it in B`s
program.
-B claims menu is not CRable b/c system/method/process/procedure under 102(b) w/
aIIirmative deIense
Holding: Method of operation is not Rable, B may build on method of operation L designed
Reject test like Matter oI First Impression, and ltai test (nonliteral copying is still
inIringement)
Macro is user`s own product and not owned by L123
Method provides means Ior user to operate/use the expression oI L123 is not protectable
under CR b/c the words are essential to operation (are part of method!)
Like buttons on VCR (not protectable under patent?) users already invested time to
learn menu, based on logic and ease of use
Application: Similar to enericide
-Stimulate creative expression w/out unduly limiting access
-Computers are diIIerent b/c mechanical utility
-D didn`t copy, but through reverse engineering
Grey area b/c Command and expression telling roommate to turn oII the lights, would this be an
expression?
Computer Associates v. Atlai (D) (1992) TS SE
lssue ls Lhere C proLecLlon for nonllLeral elemenLs of a compuLer program?
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL and 1rade secreL acLlon (woot to toke tbls os o c cose b/c 1 ollows tevetse
eoqloeetloq)
roblems CompuLer AssoclaLes had a program LhaL had a common sysLem lnLerface (allows users Lo
change/use mulLlple operaLlng sysLems whlle keeplng sofLware) ALlal wanLed Lo rewrlLe Lhelr producL
Lo use anoLher operaLlng sysLem recrulLed employee of CA who creaLed common sysLem lnLerface and
copled 0 of CA A Lrled Lo flx and excluded employee and creaLed lmproved program
Poldlng Meoo ls oot ptotectoble to closely teloteJ to lJeo boseJ oo loJostty stJs
LlLeral elemenLs llke codes ln compuLers are proLecLable buL A's new producL doesn'L have
any of CA's codes remalnlng buL nonllLeral elemenLs are subsLanLlally slmllar (flowcharLs
organlzaLlon parameLer llsLs macros)
LrucLure seems llke parL of program's ldea cannoL proLecL ldeas under C
ub[ecL Lo sobstootlolly slmllot test whlch ls Abstract|o||trat|o Compar|so for
compuLer programs (for nonllLeral elemenLs)
1 break down lnfrlnglng program lnLo sLrucLural parLs
2 examlne parLs for lncldenLal expresslon of ldea or Laken from publlc domaln (shlfL
ouL nonproLecLable parLs)
compare whaL ls lefL (CreaLlve expresslon) w/ Lhe sLrucLure of lnfrlnglng program
Levels of AbsLracLlon (low hlgh hlgher concepLlon)
llLraLlon (concreLe deflnes scope of C proLecLlon)
3
a LlemenLs dlcLaLed by efflclency (expresslon merged w/ ldea efflclency ls lndusLry goal)
b LlemenLs dlcLaLed by exLernal facLors (slmllar Lo noeblloq use of sLock characLers/scenes
lnfluenced by lndusLry sLandards)
c LlemenLs Laken from publlc domaln (closely relaLed Lo no proLecLlon of scenes o foire b/c
elemenLs of compuLer programs enLered lnLo publlc domaln)
AppllcaLlon
WhaL ls efflclency? requlres LxperL LesLlmony
problem of 2
nd
Clr Crdlnary observer (ArnsLeln) vs need for Lechnlcal guldance
CourL dlscreLlon of Lhe courL Lo declde Lo whaL exLenL experL LesLlmony ls needed
doesn'L lead Lo legal cerLalnLy
ollcy ConslderaLlons
publlc cannoL lnvesL more Llme Lo learn dlfferenL producLs promoLlng publlc avallablllLy of
llLeraLure/muslc/arLs
C Studios, Inc v. Crokster (2005)
lssue When can a producL LhaL ls capable of boLh lawful/unlawful use ls llable for acLs of C
lnfrlngemenL by
rd
parLles uslng Lhe producL?
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL (knowinq/y ond intentiono//y) allow users Lo reproduce/dlsLrlbuLe Ced works
damages and ln[uncLlon a/g CroksLer and LeamcasL
roblems peerLopeer neLworks vldeo/muslc flllng sharlng 90 of shared were Ced works some
arLlsLs wanL ftee sbotloq to qet oew ooJleoces ooJ popolotlty
Poldlng lf dlsLrlbuLes devlce w/ clear expresslon/afflrmaLlon Lo fosLer lnfrlngemenL llable for resulLlng
acLs of
rd
parLy lnfrlngemenL (a/g C )
dlsLrlbuLlng devlce w/ ob[ecL of promoLlng lLs use Lo lnfrlnge (|ducemet)
8oLh Lrled Lo geL napsLer users as napsLer was sued vlJeoce of exptess ptomotloo
motketloq ooJ loteot (dlff from mere knowledge v pulpable conducL)
no evldence LhaL elLher Lrled Lo fllLer and sLop sharlng of Ced works
Can lnfrlnge elLher by lnLenLlonally lnduclng/cotr|but|g d|rect |fr|gemet C |fr|ge
v|car|ous|y by proflLlng from dlrecL lnfrlngemenL (galn from Ads)
evetse 9
tb
clt wbeoevet posslble lowfol ose oot lloble
Concurrence
ooy LesL allows looklng Lo fuLure uses and expanded uses or Llme (capable of subsLanLlal nonlnfrlnglng
uses) 10 nonlnfrlnglng use ls sufflclenL Lo meeL ony sLd
AppllcaLlon
&eems to locteose pobllc Jomolo?
*un/ike 5ony where connot contro/ whot pp/ do w/ ck works {just become too biq o prob/em so hove
to /essen ho/dinq in 5ony) didnt intend to infrinqe orchivo/ timeshifinq
Commu|ty for creat|ve ov|o|ece v ke|d
!ames earl reld commlssloned Lo creaLe sculLpLure of homeless naLlvlLy wlLh speclflc wordlng ls Lhls a
work for hlre a [olnL work? Cr a work whose ls vesLed wlLh Lhe arLlsL?
Work made for hlre ls based on 101 of copyrlghL acL a work prepared by an employee wlLhln Lhe scope
of hls or her employmenL or a work speclflcally ordered or commlssloned for use as a conLrlbuLlon Lo a
collecLlve work as a parL of a moLlon plcLure or audlo vlsual work as a LranslaLlon as a supplemenLary
work eLc eLc
Case |ays out a mu|t| factor test for determ||g workforh|re
Lhe sklll requlred
Lhe source of Lhe lnsLrumenLallLles and Lools
Lhe locaLlon of Lhe work
Lhe duraLlon of Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe parLles
wheLher Lhe hlrlng parLy has Lhe rlghL Lo asslgn addlLlonal pro[ecLs Lo Lhe hlred parLy
Lhe exLenL of Lhe hlred parLys dlscreLlon over when and how long Lo work
Lhe meLhod of paymenL
Lhe hlred parLys role ln hlrlng and paylng asslsLanLs
wheLher Lhe work ls parL of Lhe regular buslness of Lhe hlrlng parLy
wheLher Lhe hlrlng parLy ls ln Lhe buslness
Lhe provlslon of Lhe employee beneflLs
and Lhe Lax LreaLmenL of Lhe hlred parLy
none of Lhe facLors are dlsposlLlve by Lhemselves buL vlewed LogeLher Lo palnL Lhe plcLure of wheLher
Lhe [ob was workforhlre
When works made for hlre ls found lL alLers duraLlon 93 years from publlcaLlon or 120 years from
creaLlon
no proLecLlon under vAA for muLllaLlon of rlghLs
Aa|muhammed v Lee (Io|t Jorks)
splke lee fllck Was Lhere express conLracL or lmplled conLracL
Io|t works
AuLhors of [olnL works may conLrlbuLe unevenly
8uL de mlnlmls conLrlbuLlon wlll creaLe presumpLlon agalnsL [olnL work
uoes noL maLLer who does flxaLlon
!olnL work ls concernlng expresslonnoL ldea
,ust share |tet|o to create [o|t work (a loL of cases Lurn on Lhls)
8uL Lhe lasL prong belng Lhe mosL lmporLanL
We have creaLed a LesL LhaL's golng Lo dlsadvanLage people from havlng CoCwnershlp
ln a [olnL work when you have more Lhan de mlnlmls conLrlbuLlon
Lhen you have all Lhe rlghLs of a coowner
When [olnL work ls found lL creaLes LenanLs ln common ln lnLeresL conLrolllng undlvlded
and equal fracLlonal lnLeresLs
Any [olnL owner may exerclse rlghLs and ownershlp and llcensee permlsslon of oLher [olnL
holder
neverLheless musL be careful abouL assurlng paymenL Lo oLher [olnL auLhors
Aew York 1imes v. 1asini (2001) (stop online database of articles)
lssue wheLher dlsLrlbuLlon of freelance auLhor's arLlcles falls wlLhln 201(c) of C AcL (allows publlshers
llmlLed prlvllege Lo publlsh any revlslon of collecLlve work wlLhouL auLhor's permlsslon)?
LlLlgaLe wanLed Lo sLop Lexls nexls from dlsLrlbuLlng Lhelr arLlcles onllne ln daLabases and Cuoms
tepoltes stotototy lotetptetotloo of 01(c)
Poldlng emovlng arLlcles from conLexL as parL of collecLlve work and placlng lL on daLabases as
separaLe flles goes beyond 201(c) prlvllege
PurLs lncenLlve Lo creaLe Lo enrlch publlc knowledge/domaln
newspaper clalmed safe harbor provlslon 201(c) as a revlslon of collecLlve work (b/c alLers
how lL wlll be seen)
C ln each separaLe conLrlbuLlon Lo a collecLlve work ls dlsLlncL from C of a collecLlve work
sLops belng a collecLlve work b/c selzed separaLely
whaL happens wlLh conLracLual rlghLs? lf owners don'L agree Lhen would lose valuable
lnformaLlon Lo publlc
owner of C ln a collecLlve work ls presumed Lo have acqulred only Lhe prlvllege of
reproduclng and dlsLrlbuLlng Lhe conLrlbuLlon as parL of LhaL collecLlve work
d. Fair &se, Copyright Extension ct, and the Public Domain
We know we have consLlLuLlonal wrlLe even lf falr use dld noL exlsL ConsLlLuLlon (arLlcle 1 secLlon 8)
vesLs ln congress Lhe power Lo promlse Lhe progress of sclence and useful arLs by securlng for llmlLed
Llmes Lo auLhors and lnvenLors Lhe excluslve rlghL Lo Lhe respecLlve wrlLlngs and producLlons
LlmlLaLlons on
er se sub[ecL maLLer llmlLaLlons such as requlrlng meeLlng of orlglnallLy sLandard
LlmlLaLlons on secLlon 10 excluslve rlghLs llmlLaLlons on parLlcular rlghL (AWA)
LvldenLlary sLandards shlfLlng bar on whaL ls requlred Lo prove lnfrlngemenL (1hlnk vlcLorles ecreL
case or samara broLhers)
Compulsory llcenslng (someone owns copyrlghLed maLerlal buL ls forced Lo do llcensee lL ouL
alr use
8
19 acL LlmlLaLlons on excluslve rlghLs alr use"
A afflrmaLlve defense relevanL only afLer Lhe plalnLlff has esLabllshed a prlma facle case
alr use may be called a prlvllege LhaL counLers a rlghL
LmbodlmenL of Lhe clause promoLe Lhe progress of sclence and Lhe useful arLs (from arLlcle 1)
hleld agalnsL Lhe clause securlng Lo auLhors Lhe excluslve rlghL Lo Lhelr wrlLlngs" (secLlon 10's
excluslve rlghLs) (always agalnsL Lhe excluslve rlghLs)
Aff|rmat|ve Defeses to |fr|gmet
alr use ls secLlon 10
LaLue of llmlLaLlons ls secLlon 30
Laches fallure Lo acL agalnsL lnfrlngemenL (no speclflc Llme llmlL)
LsLoppel you acqulescence Lo lnfrlngemenL
mlsuse
raud on Lhe offlce
LC1lCn 10 Al uL
or purposes such as crlLlclsm commenL news reporLlng Leachlng (lncludlng mulLlple coples for
classroom use) scholarshlp or research ls noL lnfrlngemenL of
ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe use made of a work ln any parLlcular case ls a falr use Lhe facLors Lo be
consldered shall lnclude
(1) Lhe purpose and characLer of Lhe use
(2) Lhe naLure of Lhe work
() Lhe amounL and subsLanLlallLy of Lhe porLlon used ln relaLlon Lo Lhe work as a whole
(4) Lhe effecL of Lhe use upon Lhe poLenLlal markeL
ules Lo employ secLlon 10 facLors no brlghL llne rules Lhere all facL lnLenslve all facLors are welghed
LogeLher no slngle facLor ls dlsposlLlve Welgh facLors ln llghL of consLlLuLlonal purpose
D,CA (dlglLlal mllllnlum copyrlghL acL) klnda fucks wlLh falr use cease and deslsL leLLers are noLlce Lo
sLop lnfrlnglng buL whose decldlng wheLher Lhe shlL Lhere Lelllng you Lo Lake down ls AC1uAL
lnfrlngemenL
ln a sense you can do all Lhls fancy work for u,CA buL Lheres a problem LhaL Lhls ls a ex posL declslon on
all Lhese falr use cases
Cases:
CopyrlghL AcL of 19 10 (alr use)
CopyrlghL AcL of 19 108 (LlmlLaLlons on Lxcluslve rlghLs)
CopyrlghL LxLenslon AcL of 199
9
5ony v universo/ city 5tudios {8etomox cose) (1984)
lssue WheLher Lhese acLlvlLles fall w/ln alr use excepLlon ls 8eLamax capable of commerclally
slgnlflcanL nonlnfrlnglng uses?
LlLlgaLe conLrlbuLory C lnfrlngemenL
roblems prlvaLe noncommerclal LlmeshlfLlng done aL home ln[uncLlon could deprlve publlc of
nonlnfrlnglng use some producers of 1v neLworks belleve LlmeshlfLlng lncreases value of C decrease
1v raLlngs and hurL shows
Poldlng uoootbotlzeJ tlmesblftloq ot bome ls leqltlmote folt ose
*Lo challenge a noncommerclal use lL musL be harmful or adversely affecL poLenLlal markeL
(llkellhood of harm noL acLual harm necessary)
1lme shlfLlng expands publlc access Lo freely broadcasLed 1v programs/movles
Allow use of recordlng devlce for siqnificont noninfrinqinq uses (for Lhe purposes of Llme
shlfLlng)
AppllcaLlon
LqulLable ule of eason
1) alrness ConslderaLlons
commerlcal use ls lmporL presumptive/y unfoir noncommerclal ls presumpLlvely falr
2) lncenLlve ConslderaLlons
presumpLlon of falrness burden of proof on Lo show harm
non cognlzable harm?
lssue of dlff b/w 1lme shlfLlng and CaLalogulng/Llbrary
ead 8eLamax ln llghL of CroksLer (! 8reyer sees 8eLamax)
8eLamax ls a pollcy msg for creaLlng ex anLe proLecLlon ag conLrlbuLory lnfrlngemenL sulLs
8 doesn'L ask whaL could you have done how can you geL around Lhls? 1echnologlcal soluLlon
8 supporLs developmenL of dual use Lechnology (non and lnfrlnglng)
8 ls forward uslng and noL sLaLlc snapshoL (provldes safe harbor for Lechnology capable of
nonlnfrlnglng use)
lde noLe
LeglslaLlve amlly and LnLerLalnmenL AcL (2003) Crlmllllzed Lhe copylng of fllm ln LheaLer or dlsLrlbuLlon
of prerelease fllm Legallzed creaLlon of machlne Lo sklp ob[ecLlonable conducL (LhaL Lhe crazy parL)
0
rom Lhls came Lhe Clearplay company (baslcally glves congress mandaLed falr use exempLlon Lo creaLe
derlvaLlve work)
10 alr use 1esL
1 Welgh ln commerclal or nonproflL characLer of acLlvlLy
2 LffecL of use on poLenLlal markeL or value of C work (10(4))
erfect 10 v Amazo
Coogle lmages Lhumbnall case
Were really asklng Lwo quesLlons for Lhe flrsL quesLlon of 10 facLors
o lnsLead of [usL asklng Lhe purpose and characLer of Lhe use Lhls case ls asklng
1 ls Lhe use LransformaLlve
2 ls lL commerclal
8ecause lLs found hlghly LransformaLlve ln Lhls one google and amazon geL Lo asserL falr use defense
shleld Lven Lhough lmage lLself ls noL Lransformed lmage [usL goes from blg Loo small
WlL Lhlnks Lhelrs noLhlng LransformaLlve abouL Lhe lmage buL everyLhlng and anyLhlng havlng Lo do
wlLh Lhe purpose ls And LhaL's whaL ls lmporLanL for Lhls case 8ecause Lhe plcLure ls belng used for
hlghly dlfferenLlaLed purpose namely for lndexlng and searchlng Lhe falr use defense proLecLs LhaL bad
boy
American Ceophysical &nion v. 1exaco (1994)
lssue ls commerclal research falr use musL Lhe company pay for every arLlcle and sLop
copylng/dlsLrlbuLlng magazlne?
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL of unauLhorlzed phoLocopylng of arLlcles from Lhelr [ournals
roblems one of Lhe exempLlons of C lnfrlngemenL ls research scholarly work buL lL ls lndlrecLly
relaLed Lo commerclal venLures
Poldlng showlng of subsLanLlal harm
alr use 1esL (10)
1 urposes and CharacLer of use (commerclal v nonproflL educaLlonal?) a]g 1
for personal convenlence bulky own llbrary/archlval
hurLs AC b/c only have Lo buy 1 [ournal and avold paymenL
nC1 1ransformaLlve commerclal use b/c 1 geLs proflL from research
*Commer|ca| sett|g for prof|t ature
2 naLure of Ced work (for 1)
1
facLual characLer of arLlcles law favors dlssemlnaLlng facLual works
AmounL and ubsLanLlallLy of orLlon used (a]g 1)
copled enLlrely
4 LffecL on oLenLlal ,arkeL or value (a]g 1)
posslble sales on addlLlonal [ournal subscrlpLlons back lssues back volumes (buL no markeL yeL)
llcenslng revenues and fees would lncrease greaLly
ulssenL CharacLer of us ls research and scholarly purposes (phoLocopylng ls ok under excepLlons) and
no 4
Lh
facLor of effecL on poLenLlal markeL (no markeL no value)
AppllcaLlon
C how ls 8etomox LransformaLlve?
Harper & #ow v. Aation (1985) ('scoop` of autobiography of famous person/event)
lssue does falr use allow unauLhorlzed use of quoLaLlons from a publlc flgure's unpubllshed manuscrlpL?
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL counLerclalm of falr use
roblems seems llke news/facLs naLlon clalms 1
sL
AmendmenL rlghL
Poldlng kiqht to contro/ 1
st
pub/icotion outweiqhs foir use {shodes of N5 decision omiqo)
,usL proLecL and geL falr reLurn for labor (labor Lheory) hurLs lncenLlve Lo creaLe/flnance
memolrs harmful effecL of denylng publlc lmporLanL source of hlsLorlcal lnformaLlon lf noL
publlshed
Levels/LxLenL of approprlaLlon verbaLlm all or porLlons facLs only expresslon also (lN v
Al)
4 acLors of alr use 1 purpose of use (news reporLlng forproflL publlcaLlon falr use
lncludes good falLh and falr deallng) 2 naLure of work (unpubllshed work narrows exLenL of
falr use lncluded sub[ecLlve descrlpLlons of ppl) amounL and subsLanLlallLy of book Laken
(took heart of book copled verbaLlm) 4 LffecL on poLenLlal markeL (mosL lmporLanL
elemenL musL affecLs markeL and markeL for derlvaLlve works)
AppllcaLlon C how does Lhls relaLe Lo rlghL of publlclLy and prlvacy?
osslble baLLle of whaL ls newsworLhy enough? uoesnt motter if newsworthy ck intended to qive
economic incentive to disseminote/creote ideos
C how do you make lL more LransformaLlve? (less quoLes less abouL book 8u1 Lhls would ruln arLlcle
and leads Lo bad [ournallsm)
erles of lghLs (fooLnoLe 20)
2
rlvacy lnLeresL (make publlc aL all)
LdlLorlal lnLeresL ensurlng flrsL presenL Lo publlc
Lconomlc lnLeresL capLurlng remuneraLlve poLenLlal of lnlLlal release
*even Lhough publlc lnLeresL Lo know musL balance b/w prlvaLe rlghL of ord
Apply allnger v andom Pouse Lo 4 facLor LesL
1hls case under 1909 acL Lwo Lhlngs happen dlvesLlve publlcaLlon or you can reglsLer your
Lhlng for copyrlghL ulvesLlve publlcaLlon ls llke saylng Lo Lhe world Lhey can use lL eglsLer says
everyone else canL 1he unpubllshed work was proLecLed Lhrough common law copyrlghL
pre19
When we adopLed 19 acL we also lefL preproLecLlon on unpubllshed works o whaLs Lhe pre
sysLem for proLecLlon ln copyrlghL as of Loday?
or oLher sysLems Lhe prereglsLraLlon proLecLlon
or paLenL you have Lrade secreLs
or copyrlghL you had common law for 1909 acL or Loday you have
or Lrademark you have lnLenL Lo use"
1hls ls all Lhe equlLable readlng of falr use
Campell v. Acuff-#ose usic (1994) (commercial fair use)
lssue wheLher 2 Llve Crew's commerclal parody of Crblson's song ls wlLhln meanlng of falr use of C
AcL?
roblems bad falLh b/c asked permlsslon and wllllng Lo pay fee Lo use lL buL denled parody of reLLy
Woman" wanL conLrol over derlvaLlve works or works LhaL make fun of orlglnal
Poldlng commetlcol ootote of folt ose ls oot ptesomptlvely oofolt (potoJy)
alr use lncludes crlLlclsm and commenL under 10 parody eeds to m|m|c or|g|a| whlle
saLlre can sLand on lLs own
noL every commerclal use ls presumed Lo be unfalr
under
rd
acLor of amounL and subsLanLlallLy Lake can'L allow a markeL subsLlLuLe or Lake
heart of song buL a parody musL con[ure up hearL of song Lo crlLlclze lL
arody doesn'L effecL 4
Lh
acLor (poLenLlal markeL effecL) b/c no one wlll wanL Lo make fun
of Lhemselves and serves dlfference markeL funcLlons
&oo ptlvocy coocetos b/c olteoJy pobllsbeJ bot ootbot moy floJ tbls offeoslve
Application:
now does 2Live crew offect eor/ier coses? {2Live crew is tronsformotive)
8etomox {reproduced oriqino/ sove for /oter use noncommercio/ use noninfrinqinq o/q
ku/e commercio/ use is presumptive/y unfoir)
1exoco {copied ortic/e chooses no /icense over co//ected compu/sory /icense con chorqe o few
extro to moke o fund)
Notion {copied verbotim porody con toke heort of work)
&Case by case bas|s o br|ght ||e ru|es
4//owed 2 Live crew even thouqh bod foith tokinq ond neqotiotions fe// throuqh {bod foith qives poss
for foir use b/c morket foi/ure)
Apply acLors Lo parody
1 Commerclal 1ransformaLlve (soclal culLural speech acL parody ls always hlghly
LransformaLlve)
2 Plghly CreaLlve naLure of orlglnal (lgnore lL llke CourLs do)
subsLanLlal Laklng of hearL of orlglnal (con[ure up LesL needed)
4 noL markeL supplanLlng b/c Crblson wlll noL creaLe rap and wouldn'L llcense anoLher person
Lo do so
*parody changes enLlre rules of Lhe game
arody ls llke Lhe fasL Lrack Lo alr use Cwners of copyrlghL cannoL be Lhe chlllers of mockery"
8uL whaL ls a parody? and how could we separaLe lL from saLlre
arody ls speclally dlrecLed Lowards Lhe copyrlghLed work A commenL on orlglnal work
aLlre generallzes and commenLs abouL a copyrlghLed work buL [usL uses LhaL as someLhlng as a plece ln
a larger hole
lotoJy ls ttoosfotmotlve sotlte ls oot lotoJy cteotes o Jetlvotlve wotk of sotts wblle sotlte cteotes o
wbole oew wotk
lotoJy woolJ be ctoweJ oot o sotlte ls oot A sotlte moy floJ oltetootlve veblcles fot exptessloo
lotoJy pteveots oeqotlotloq llceosloq oqteemeots sotlte Joes oot cteote bot A potoJlst coooot expect
bolJet to oeqotlote petmlttloq self mockety bot sotltlst coo expect socb oeqotlotloos
1hese Lhree deflnlLlons are supposedly wrong Lhough All Lhree can be dlspelled Aka
boLh saLlre and parody would noL be granLed llcenesslng agreemenLs (no one wanLs Lhere shlL made fun
of)
4
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures (demi moore pregnant picture seems like Parody from one obvious
source, what does it speak to?, commercial poster advertisement to see film, speaks to public debate
about cover being appropriate)
CourL slmllar Lo venus udlca pose flrsL used ln AphrodlLe of knldos
Apply 4 facLors
hands ln publlc domaln (falr use)
1 urpose CharacLer (Lype of movle maklng fun of publlc conLroversy needs Lo
mlmlc orlglnal buL noL Lhe same as orlglnal smlrklng v proud of pear shaped body
quallLy w/ only Lhlng on v rlng as cheap bauble)
LransformaLlve buL small changes sllghLly favors u
2 naLure of C Work
AmounL and ubsLanLlallLy of orLlon used (copled camera angle)
hearL of orlglnal lncludes camera angle or skln Lone
hearL of work noL nude noL hands buL llghLlng skln Lones all Laken by dlglLal
means
L would noL have llcensed
4 LffecL on use of poLenLlal markeL
no ln[ury slnce wouldn'L llcense
2
nd
Clr flnds parody and alr use
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton ifflin (2001) (riticism of one w/ the Wind)
LlLlgaLe C lnfrlngemenL vlolaLlon of Lanham AcL decepLlve Lrade pracLlces Lemporary resLrlcLlon
prellmlnary ln[uncLlon of sale/producLlon/adverLlslng
roblems b/c wellknown novel shouldn'L allow much Lo con[ure lL up should llmlL amL used free
r|d|g!
Poldlng f criticism of infrinqinq work is tronsformotive enouqh foir use
rlma facle evldence of C lnfrlngemenL by valld C and andall copled orlglnal elemenLs
(characLers seLLlngs ploL llke tollooe) buL qlves oew slqolflcooce
noL a markeL subsLlLuLe Lack of lrreparable harm
arody need Lo mlmlc orlglnal CommenL on slavery and Clvll War era ln ouLh
ulssenL
arody ls noL clear cuL dlsLlncLlon andall reshapes whaL she borrows ln 1he Wlnd Cone uown noL a
subsLlLuLe LsLaLe wlll always refuse derlvaLlve works
AppllcaLlon arody or equel? (commenL on flaws of orlglnal v conLlnuous sLory
3
FA:Lr: ArL lrLLe:RlAL LLelcr LAv.
aLenL ls sLrong proLecLlon (unllke ) LaLuLory ln naLure ueslgn paLenL has a shorLer Lerm of 14
years lL ls any new ornamenLal deslgn CannoL be funcLlonal musL be ornamenLal lf funcLlonal Lhen lL
ls a uLlllLy paLenL
A uLlllLy paLenL glves you Lhree baslc rlghLs
1 1o make
2 1o use
1o sell
1hese are equlvalenL of copyrlghL secLlon 10 rlghLs ,osL rlghLs are derlved from Lhe core rlghL Lo
noL be copled 1he Lhree parL paLenL sysLem ls more llke a rlghL Lo hold and use a monopoly noL a
derlved seL of rlghLs Lhey are really seen as core Lo holdlng a monopoly ulfferenL from because ls
only abouL copylng le lndependenL dlscovery ls ok ln buL noL ln aLenL We glve a monopoly
because of a quld pro quo Lo glve an lncenLlve Lo lnvenL and an lncenLlve Lo dlsclose roLecLlon for 20
years
lmporLanL Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL Lhe quld pro quo lsnL always Lhere harmaceuLlcles for example have
varlaLlons because of dlfferenL approvals whlch are needed and oLher Llme llmlLaLlons whlch may llmlL
lL Lo less Lhan Lhe 20 years
lnlLlal sysLem was llLerally 1homas !efferson decldlng lf he LhoughL someLhlng was paLenLable Lhen
moved Lo [udlclal branch flnally esLabllshed paLenL offlce ln 180s
1here ls a very robusL gaLekeeplng efforL 1here ls a federal clrculL Lo handle only paLenL cases 1here
was an overwhelmlng anLlpaLenL senslblllLy Lhrough Lhe federal clrculLs Lhrough Lhe 190s so creaLlng
Lhls paLenLonly federal clrculL has removed Lhls barrler 1hlrdly Lhls courL level wlll glve you an
exLenslon of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve apparaLus even Lhough lL ls an arLlcle courL
Why Lhls backlash agalnsL aLenLs?
O eople were abuslng
O aLenLs lmmunlze agalnsL anLlLrusL whlch does noL slL well wlLh many
O 1hls really varles Lhrough Llme lf you look around 1910 Lhere ls an amorous llklng of
poollng paLenLs for people Lo share Lhelr paLenLs now Lhere ls clalms LhaL poollng ls
good and we should do lL buL Lhere are anLlLrusL lssues Lhere
A. Sub|ect Matter of Utility Patents
Statutory Subject atter Limitations
aLenL AcL 101
lanL aLenL AcL (190) and lanL varleLy roLecLlon AcL (190)
Patent is related to a market There is no equivalent doctrine in patent law to 'time shiIting in
copyright
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
lssue wheLher a humanmade mlcroorganlsm ls paLenLable sub[ecL maLLer
LlLlgaLe appeal denlal of paLenL reglsLraLlon clalms
roblems good for envlronmenL b/c breaks down crude oll spllls clalmed meLhod of produclng bacLerla
and problem Lo clalm of Lhe bacLerla lLself
Poldlng paLenLable b/c noL found ln naLure buL human consLrucLlon
LaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlons of manufacLure" and composlLlon of maLLer"
101 has llmlLs and doesn'L embrace every dlscovery lf lows of ootote pbyslcol pbeoomeoo
ot obsttoct lJeos
should resorL Lo LeglslaLure on rlsks of geneLlc research (polluLlon/dlsease /loss of genelc
dlverslLy) lL fu|f|||s purpose of promot|g progress of sc|ece ad usefu| arts
ulssenL Congress speclflcally excluded bacLerla ln lanL AcLs proLecLlon only exLended Lo planLs
recedenL ook 8totbets eeJ comblnlng bacLerla was a dlscovery noL an lnvenLlon so lL was noL
paLenLable already occurred ln naLure [usL comblned Lhem (no new producL)
AppllcaLlon C should human lnLervenLlon be a LouchsLone for paLenLablllLy?
Who is the best actor: Congress or Court?
Aonobviousness
Craham v. 1ohn Deere (1966)
lssue WheLher obvlous exLenslons of sLaLe of arL are paLenLable? (no)
LlLlgaLe lnfrlngemenL sulL (ueere) Craham appealed denlal of paLenL for plow chlsel b/c deslgn was
mere exLenslon of a sLaLe of arL (Clamp for vlbraLlng shank plows)
roblems as a whole" obvlous lmprovemenL of exlsLlng Lechnology sprlng clamp so less wear/repalrs
a/g obsLrucLlons paLenL for prevlous producL
Poldlng ueny paLenL
10 of aLenL AcL (1932) doesn'L allow paLenLs for whaL ls obvlous Lo person ordlnary
person ln Lhe lndusLry ([udlclal requlremenL LhaL lL musL be Lhe resulL of someLhlng more
Lhan ordlnary sklll found ln fleld producL of lnvenLor noL sklllful mechanlc)
ltlot Att (only 2 small dlfferences lnverLed poslLlon of shank and bolLlng of shank Lo hlnge
plaLe)
Joesot mottet lf Jlffeteot effect tbooqb smoll cbooqes (obvloos cbooqes)
Aftettbooqbt lf so lmporLanL why dldn'L Lhey argue freeflexlblllLy Lo aLenL offlce re[ecL
b/c same maLerlal elemenLs same operaLlon
AppllcaLlon same maLerlal elemenLs Lhen musL Lhey add more? Pow much more?
C are lmprovemenLs paLenLable? known/old elemenLs buL new producL/process?
nonobvlousness ls llke hlgher sLd of novelLy
Exclusive #ights, Infringement and 1he Doctrine of Equivalents
lesto corp v 5hoketsu kintoku koqyo kobushiki co Ltd (00)
lssue wbetbet omeoJmeots to comply wltb tepoltemeots of poteot oppllcotloo sboolJ be estoppeJ llke
omeoJmeots to oottow sobject mottet (ot ovolJ ptlot ott)?AoJ Jbetbet some epolvoleots wlll stlll
loftloqe? ls tbe loveotot stlll botteJ ftom ossettloq loftloqemeot clolms?
LlLlgaLe esLo clalms ,C's producL ls Loo slmllar and lL lnfrlnges under docLrlne of equlvalenLs ,C
clalms esLopped from maklng argumenL b/c of prosecuLlon hlsLory of paLenLs
roblems by narrowlng clalm paLenLee surrenders all equlvalenLs of amended clalm
8y amendlng paLenLee dlsLlngulshes b/w musL be maLerlal and whaL lsn'L proLecLable
*CannoL regaln whaL was earller rellnqulshed
Amend Lo saLlsfy requlremenLs of aLenL AcL v Avold preempLlon by earller lnvenLlons
Poldlng
narrowed lLs clalms Lo geL paLenL now lL canL say Lhe feaLures are lmmaLerlal and LhaL
,C's devlce ls Lhe equlvalenLs of lLs own
CompleLe bar promoLes cerLalnLy ln lnfrlngemenL cases
CompleLe 8ar v lexlble 8ar of LsLoppel
esLo clalms LhaL by rewrlLlng/ad[usLlng Lhe clalm Lo clarlfy an amblguous Lerm no lnLenLlon of
surrenderlng sub[ecL maLLer and shouldn'L be esLopped
CourL responds lf Lruly cosmeLlc change of a 112 AmendmenL would noL narrow paLenL's scope
Patent question: whats the difference b/w design patent, process patent, patent for thing
itself, utility patent in Traffix, etc?
-patents allow protection for what is functional? Conflicts with TM b/c can`t protect what
is functional (similar to novelty requirement in X?)
can be functional b/c of useful requirement 1uicy Whip (not useful under design patent
b/c rigorous requirement)
Does TM allow revere engineering? Or protect a/g it?
For Infringement in each regime &nder what authority/law can you bring action with?
Trade dress infringement 4(a) of Lanham ct.