Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Interdisciplinary Research Team On Programmer Creativity In Support Of Respondent, Ralph D. Clifford, Firas Khatib, Trina Kershaw, Kavitha Chandra, Jay Mccarthy
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Interdisciplinary Research Team On Programmer Creativity In Support Of Respondent, Ralph D. Clifford, Firas Khatib, Trina Kershaw, Kavitha Chandra, Jay Mccarthy
Faculty Publications
This brief answers the two primary issues that are associated with the first question before the Court. First, the programmers’ expression of the Java-based application programmer interfaces (“APIs”) are sufficiently creative to satisfy that requirement of copyright law. Second, the idea expression limitation codified in Section 102(b) of Copyright Act does not establish that the APIs are ideas. Both of these assertions are supported by the empirical research undertaken by the Research Team. This brief expresses no opinion on the resolution of the fair use question that is also before the Court.
Artistic Control After Death, Eva Subotnik
Artistic Control After Death, Eva Subotnik
Faculty Publications
To what extent should authors be able to control what happens to their literary, artistic, and musical creations after they die? Viewed through the lens of a number of succession law trends, the evidence might suggest that strong control is warranted. The decline of the Rule Against Perpetuities and rise of incentive trusts reflect a tightening grip of the dead hand. And yet, an unconstrained ability of the dead to determine future uses of literature, art, and music is a fundamentally troubling notion. This Article evaluates the instructions authors give with respect to their authorial works against the backdrop of …
Random Numbers, Chaos Theory, And Cogitation: A Search For The Minimal Creativity Standard In Copyright Law, Ralph D. Clifford
Random Numbers, Chaos Theory, And Cogitation: A Search For The Minimal Creativity Standard In Copyright Law, Ralph D. Clifford
Faculty Publications
This article explores the second type of expressive work, those where there is a question if the author’s contribution is qualitatively sufficient, to determine how much creativity and of what type is required to sustain a copyright. Initially, the historic standards of creativity use before Fiest was decided in 1991 will be presented. Then, after a brief discussion of Fiest, the scientific basis of creativity will be explored. Next, the confusion regarding creativity that exists in the lower courts will serve to expose the source of misapplication of the law – a disconnect between how courts perceive creativity and …
Simultaneous Copyright And Trade Secret Claims: Can The Copyright Misuse Defense Prevent Constitutional Doublethink?, Ralph D. Clifford
Simultaneous Copyright And Trade Secret Claims: Can The Copyright Misuse Defense Prevent Constitutional Doublethink?, Ralph D. Clifford
Faculty Publications
As the Constitution authorizes Congress to grant copyrights, it subjects the power to a public purpose requirement. Any monopoly Congress grants must be for the purpose of “promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.” But one result of Congress enacting the 1976 Act is a potential conflict between the Act and this public purpose requirement. An owner of intellectual property may believe that both copyright law – which mandates disclosure – and trade secret law – which mandates secrecy – can be used simultaneously. To believe that disclosure and secrecy can coexist is doublethink as both cannot be true. …
Intellectual Property In The Era Of The Creative Computer Program, Ralph D. Clifford
Intellectual Property In The Era Of The Creative Computer Program, Ralph D. Clifford
Faculty Publications
Computer scientists, using artificial intelligence techniques such as neural networks, are enabling computers to independently create works that appear to qualify for federal intellectual property protection. In at least one case, the creator of this kind of program has registered its output, a series of musical compositions, under his name as author with United States Copyright Office. Whether the output of the computer satisfies the statutory and constitutional requisites for protection is questionable, however. The author of this Article argues that the output of an autonomously creative computer program cannot be protected under the current copyright and patent laws. Further, …