Slashdot Mirror
Biggest IP cases of 2002
scubacuda writes "Law.com's article, The Biggest IP Cases of 2002, has a nice summary of some of the intellectual property cases that have caught our attention this last year. Of particular interest to slashdotters: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (regarding Arriba's visual search engine), Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (regarding
a gene patent being invalid because it did not meet the written description requirement), an Illinois federal court injunction against Aimster, United States v. Elcom Ltd a/k/a Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. , and Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Welles (regarding Playmate of the Year, Terri Welles, using Playboy's marks and metatags on her website)."
At first I was relieved to see no actual nudity on the site, until I found this.
At least it's tastefull.
MacAndrew wrote: "because the life+70/95 terms are not obviously unreasonable, esp. when compared to law in other countries ..."
I wonder if you know any other country having a longer term than the US (life+70/95)? To the best of my knowledge all other countries have had lower terms. Those that have changed have done so after US "nudging". Only one country, Australia has publicly stated they will not increase it over 70, India has 60 years limit, and Taiwan has refused to accept US demands to increase it to 95 years.
Yes, but just a couple. Some very industrious people compiled this list.
Even were the US the longest, it would have to be so by a good margin to stick out. Again, I don't necessarily think the current terms are appropriate. Judge Posner has criticized them well, and noted that the main problem is that because it is difficult to make money off materials in the public domain, there was little opposition to the Sonny Bono Act.
Thanks for the list.r oast-pi g-copyright-102202.html
It seems to me that the Eldred v. Ashcroft is not so much a challenge to the number of years, but rather to the very right of Congress to make such extensions indefinitely.
Lawrence Lessig, says:
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/10/
"The Constitution says that copyrights are to be "for limited Times." The framers initially set those "limited Times" to be quite short--14 years, renewable once. After a limited time, copyrighted work was to pass into the public domain--a lawyer-free zone where publishers and creators can draw upon creative work without fear of legal liability. This text, the challengers say, forbids the extension of existing terms."
It does not appear that the Sonny Bono Act furthers the purposes of copyright law for a number of reasons. First, the Act applies retroactively to subsisting works. Second, adding another extension to the 70 year period does not appear to add any further incentive to authors. Third, simply because we were trying to conform with other countries does not mean the Congress is immune from limitations placed on it by the Constitution. And finally, it appears that the law was passed more to protect corporate interests than the public.
... the useful Arts", but instead allow the corporations to continue exploiting the works for another twenty years.
The constitution in Article I, 8 clause 8 says that "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" Congress may secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries for "limited times." In other words, the founders noted that in order to create incentives for authors to create works, it was necessary to grant them an exclusive right for a limited time for the work they created. Otherwise, one could spend a great deal of time and skill creating a new work merely to have someone else make the profit. In applying the Sonny Bono Act to subsisting works, Congress appears to have broadened the grant of power given to them by the founders. For once the work has been created upon the existing notion of copyright protection, there is no longer the need to provide any incentive to the author. The founders appear to have conditioned Congress' ability to protect authored works for limited times to promote the useful Arts. Once that Art has been created, Congress has therefore fulfilled its duty in providing the incentive. A retroactive extension of the time period does not in any way affect the incentive to create a work that has already been created. Therefore, a retroactive extension of the copyright protection does not further the purposes of copyright law.
Secondly, though Congress was granted the ability to determine what "limited times" means, there has to be some point at which Congress has overstepped its authority. Clearly, if Congress granted copyright protection for 900 years, it would be, by definition, a "limited time", but also be beyond what was needed to create an incentive for authors. Arguably, Congress' extension of the existing time period defeats the purpose of the limited time limitation if Congress is then again free to add another extension. Were Congress to continue such a practice, "limited times" would be in name only. Rather, it would be, in essence, an unlimited time. Therefore, there must be a point at which Congress can no longer grant an extension to an existing time period, especially for subsisting works.
Thirdly, Congress cannot justify its actions based on international law. One of the reasons given for this law was to bring us up to the same time period as other European countries so we would receive the benefit of reciprocity. However, as noted during oral arguments, if France were to declare that all hate speech was unprotectable, Congress could not pass a law stating the same in the interest of international IP harmony.
Finally, the biggest proponents of the Act are the giant media corporations who do not wish to see works they own to fall into the public domain. Quite a bit of lobbying and campaign contributions went into pressuring Congress to pass the Act. As such, one has to wonder, when pondering the retroactive aspects of the bill, whether the purpose was merely to reward and protect the giant media corporations. If this is the case, and I think one could make a good argument that it is so, then Congress is clearly not trying to "promote
Therefore, taking into account that extending the period for subsisting works does nothing to promote the useful Arts, that continually extending the time period is, in essence, an unlimited time, and that a strong argument could be made that the Act was more about reward corporate interests than allowing works to fall into the public domain, it appears the Act does not further the purposes of copyright law.
First, there's Kelly vs. AribaSoft, which held that thumbnail images are fair use. That's a good decision; it means we can have image indices, like Google's.
Then there's Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress, regarding copyrights on the text of laws. Some states outsourced their building code creation to a semiprivate organization, which then claimed copyright on the text. The decision was clear: "'The law,' whether articulated in judicial opinions or legislative acts or ordinances, is in the public domain and thus not amenable to copyright." That's consistent with the general rule that when a government does something via a contractor, the government does not escape any obligations it would have if it did the job in-house. So you can scan in your local building code (or all the building codes in the country) and put it on line, even if some private company drafted the building code book.
I don't know if this is the biggest IP case of 2002, but it's one of the funniest: Mattel v. Universal [warning: pdf link], which concerns MCA Records' release of a single called "Barbie Girls" (which, of course, drew a lawsuit from lawsuit-happy Mattel). Judge Alex Kozinski, one of the most hilarious judicial opinion-writers of our time, called this "the battle between "speech-Zilla and trademark-Kong."
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property.
:
This phrase is designed to help giving the impresion of pantents, copyrights being some sort of durable solid property, when in fact they are
1. limited rights granted by society
2. granted for a limited time and
3. granted in exchange for a specified service to society.
Using the phrase IP only help, to obcure these facts in the direction of 2 and 3 being removed.