Canon of Important Software IP Cases?

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward asks: "I'm interested in knowing some of the most significant cases that have influenced the field of software intellectual property law. As someone who is interested in pursuing patent law as a career, I'm interested in reading some of the 'big' cases to get a better idea of what issues and situations motivate and drive patent lawyers."

Comments

Lawyer motivation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested in reading some of the 'big' cases to get a better idea of what issues and situations motivate and drive patent lawyers.

Money.

I don't know about specific cases

[Tirel]

But you should definately check with the American Intellectual Property Law Association, they're your best bet for solid IP info (which slashdot isn't.)

Apple vs. Microsoft

[Johnny Mnemonic]

One of the earliest litigations of software IP, I think; or at least one that had the largest impact. A synopsis. Even more briefly: "look-and-feel" isn't a legal term. Furthermore, you can no more protect an interface for a software application than you can "protect the operating interface to a motor vehicle."

Re:Apple vs. Microsoft

[Shenkerian]

Although you're correct about look-and-feel, Apple v. Microsoft was a purely contractual case. The issue at hand was whether Microsoft's license of Apple IP for Windows 1.0 carried over into Windows 2.0 without a new contract.

The precedent for "look-and-feel" is the landmark case Lotus v. Borland, where UI menu trees were found unprotected by copyright law.

Shrink-wrap license...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

and look-and-feel GUI. These are the two big ones that come to my mind.

I don't believe the validity of the shrink-wrap software license has ever been *thoroughly* settled.

Someone like Ashton-Tate did win a fairly definitive lawsuit granting copywrite protection to a program's look and feed.

How it all began...

[Shenkerian]

I don't have my references at work, but In re Alappat is considered the precedent for why software is patentable at all.

It overturned a previous case Diamond v. Diehr where algorithms, as an application of math, were found to be "natural law" and unprotected by patent law.

Don't be mislead

[CaptainStormfield]

You are certainly going down the right path in thinking about the "big picture" of the legal field in which you want to practice. However, I'd offer to caveats/suggestions:

(1) Don't be mislead into thinking that your practice will usually involve issues of the magnitude of those in the "leading" cases. Those cases are leading cases becuase they are unusual, and because they are watershed cases that totally rearranged the legal landscape. Most litigation practice involves filling in the minute gaps left open by the big cases, if you're lucky enough to deal with big cases at all. For better or worse (probably worse) day-to-day legal practice is about details, not the big picture.

(2) You might consider taking a look at a general intellecutual property casebook (one prepared for law students). Obviously, there are many "general" IP cases that are very important in the software domain. (My copyright text, for instance, contained many software copyright cases). I'm sure that there are casebooks for Software IP too. These are a great place to start. They don't assume much background, and the cases are often condensed to include only the important bits.

IAAL (though not a Software IP lawyer).

Advice from a lawyer

[Paul Bain]

Yes, IAAL. I switched careers into IT a few years ago. Why? It is a long story.

First, reconsider becoming a lawyer. Consider carefully the advice of lawyers who are no longer practicing -- there are many of them. Ask them why they left the law. You might start here.

Then, if you still think that you want to study and practice law, find a law library and the intellectual property (IP) section therein. Many local bar associations have small law libraries, and law schools tend to have larger ones. The definitive work on copyright used to be Nimmer on copyright, which will provide more citations to case law than you will know what to do with. The librarian (or perhaps the lawyers and paralegals using the library) will be able to direct you to the cases cited. Nimmer probably has his counterparts in related IP fields (e.g., patents, trademarks, tradenames, and trade secrets), but I do not know the titles off hand. These counterpart books will also provide citations, both to case law and to other sources of authority, such as statutes, regulations, and treaties. If the library has such counterparts, they will probably be in the IP section of the library, along with Nimmer. The books containing the cases are often elsewhere in the library, not in the IP section.

Third, consider your choice of law school carefully. Most law schools offer only one, introductory course on IP law, but some law schools (e.g., George Mason University in Northern Virginia, near D.C.) provide several advanced courses beyond that introductory course. Having those additional courses could make a difference in determining whether you receive the job offers that you want.

Fourth, remember that most lawyers practicing patent law have a technical background, e.g., an engineering or science degree. You would probably need to have considerable technical knowledge in order to practice patent law. Sometimes, you will also need to pass the patent bar exam (cannot remember the official name of this exam) as well as the bar exam of the jurisdictions in which you wish to practice.

Last, while in law school, consider taking at least one course on federal income taxation and perhaps an additional course devoted to the taxation of property transactions (sometimes called "capital transactions"). Nearly every business transaction involving IP is certain to have important, complex tax consequences. You need to know those consequences in order to help the client plan the transaction.