Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Copyright And The Vagueness Doctrine, Bradley E. Abruzzi
Copyright And The Vagueness Doctrine, Bradley E. Abruzzi
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Constitution's void-for-vagueness doctrine is itself vaguely stated. The doctrine does little to describe at what point vague laws-other than those that are entirely standardless-become unconstitutionally vague. Rather than explore this territory, the Supreme Court has identified three collateral factors that affect its inclination to invalidate a law for vagueness: (1) whether the law burdens the exercise of constitutional rights, (2) whether the law is punitive in nature, and (3) whether the law overlays a defendant-protective scienter requirement. Measured against these factors, copyright law does not meet the vagueness doctrine's minimum requirement of fair notice to the public. Copyright, by …
Researching Remedies In Intellectual Property Actions Involving Computer Technology: A Research Guide, Daniel N. Kassabian
Researching Remedies In Intellectual Property Actions Involving Computer Technology: A Research Guide, Daniel N. Kassabian
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
The purpose of this research guide is not to answer the question "What remedies are available to an owner of computer related technology whose rights have been infringed?" but to provide a methodology by which a legal practitioner can find the answer to this question. This guide sets forth materials and methods of research that can be used for an inquiry that is broad in scope, such as researching which legal scheme's remedial component best suits a client's technology, but that are also capable of being used for a narrow or limited inquiry, such as looking for specific remedies available …
The Copyright Act Of 1976 And Prejudgment Interest, Jon M. Powers
The Copyright Act Of 1976 And Prejudgment Interest, Jon M. Powers
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that prejudgment interest should be presumptively available on damages-plus-profits awards under section 504(b) but should not be available for statutory damages under section 504(c). Part I argues that Supreme Court precedent suggests that the explicit reference to interest found in the Patent Act does not prevent courts from awarding prejudgment interest under the 1976 Copyright Act. Part II asserts that the 1976 Copyright Act's silence regarding prejudgment interest does not represent a congressional choice to exclude this remedy and that, in the face of this silence, the underlying purposes of section 504 should determine the propriety of …