Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Intent Element Of Inducement To Infringe Under Patent Law: Reflections On Grokster, Lynda J. Oswald
The Intent Element Of Inducement To Infringe Under Patent Law: Reflections On Grokster, Lynda J. Oswald
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In June, 2005, the United States Supreme Court set forth an "inducement" rule in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. that imposes secondary liability on "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement." The Court emphasized the limitations of the liability standard it was setting forth, stating that the target was only "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise." Yet, the liability standard set forth in Grokster …
The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Susan Ness
The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Susan Ness
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Interconnection Policy And Technological Progress, Gerald W. Brock
Interconnection Policy And Technological Progress, Gerald W. Brock
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The Failure Of Competition Under The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Gene Kimmelman, Mark Cooper, Magda Herra
The Failure Of Competition Under The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Gene Kimmelman, Mark Cooper, Magda Herra
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Jim Robbins
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, Jim Robbins
Federal Communications Law Journal
No abstract provided.