Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Copyright And The First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, Or Uneasy Allies?, Joseph P. Bauer

Washington and Lee Law Review

The copyright regime and the First Amendment seek to promote the same goals. Both seek the creation and dissemination of more, better, and more diverse literary, pictorial, musical and other works. But, they use significantly different means to achieve those goals. The copyright Laws afford to the creator of a work the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, transform, and perform that work for an extended period of time. The First Amendment, on the other hand, proclaims that Congress "shall make no Law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, " thus at least nominally indicating that limitations on …

Of Cameras And Courtrooms, Alex Kozinski, Robert Johnson

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unbranding Of Brands: Advocating For Source Disclosure In Corporate America, Cassi G. Matos

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Inadequate: The Apec Privacy Framework & Article 25 Of The European Data Protection Directive, Stuart Hargreaves

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The EU and APEC approaches represent two different ways of thinking about the purpose of privacy rights in personal information (a.k.a. “informational privacy” or “data privacy”). The European approach sees integrity and control over information about oneself as inherent to human dignity; informational privacy is treated as a fundamental right subject only to limited restrictions. In contrast, the approach evinced by APEC is a market-oriented cost/benefit calculus; control over personal information is seen as a beneficial policy goal when it can increase consumer confi- dence and promote economic growth — the implication being that it can also more easily give …

La Cyberintimidation: Analyse Juridique, Karen D. Levin

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

Dans ce mémoire va être traitée une analyse juridique de la cyberintimidation. Dans une première partie, nous tenterons de définir le terme « cyberintimidation » et les enjeux qui s’y rattachent. En deuxième lieu, nous examinerons la motivation qui mène à la cyberintimidation, ainsi que la manière dans laquelle l’acte se produit. Troisièmement, nous évaluerons les provisions du droit criminel fédéral, des droits de la personne, et du droit des délits civils afin de déterminer l’efficacité de notre système juridique à détourner la cyberintimidation. Finalement, nous trancherons la question de réforme qui se propose au Canada, la comparant aux réformes …

Book Review - Intellectual Property Rights And The Life Science Industries: Past, Present, And Future, Chidi Oguamanam

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

Our so-called post-industrial society is one whose axial feature is the interac- tion between computer-driven digital and life science-driven bio-technologies. The primary legal mechanism that undergirds the allocation of rights in this new infor- mation-centred epoch is intellectual property. Perhaps only a few industrial sectors have benefitted more from the dynamics of that interaction than the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps also, only a few industrial sectors have fully appreciated and opti- mally exploited the power of intellectual property than that sector. How did that happen? How has it continued to unfold, and what does the future hold for the continued co-evolution …

Principles Of The Law Of Software Contracts: Some Highlights, Robert A. Hillman, Maureen O'Rourke

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The final draft of the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts ("Principles") was unanimously approved by the American Law Institute membership in May of 2009. The goal of the project is to “clarify and unify the law of software transactions.” However, the Principles will not become law in any jurisdiction unless and until a court adopts them, so only time will tell whether the project will accomplish this goal. Nevertheless, one thing is certain. The current law of software transactions, a mish-mash of common law, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and federal intellectual property law, among other …

In The Shadow Of Innovation, Gaia Bernstein

Cardozo Law Review

We are in the midst of the intellectual property wars. Scholars, judges, legislators, corporations, creators, and inventors disagree about the role of intellectual property rights. Yet, surprisingly everyone agrees about innovation - everyone loves innovation. Innovation appears everywhere: in legal scholarship, case law, legislative hearings, newspapers, and blogs. It is uniformly admired and aspired to - though almost never questioned.

Innovation is often assumed to have historically held a central role in the technology regulating legal regime. This Article presents a study of case law, which demonstrates that contrary to common belief, the celebration of innovation is, in fact, a …

United States Response To Questionnaire Concerning The Terms Of Protection In The Field Of Copyright And Related Rights, June M. Besek, Jane C. Ginsburg, N. Orly Leventer, Joshua L. Simmons

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discipline And Nourish: On Constructing Commons, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Scholarship has examined many possible ways to encourage the creation and dissemination of art, works of authorship, ideas, and inventions: rights of exclusion (copyrights and patents), prizes, governmental subsidies, private subsidies (including both foundations and patronage), reputation, and so forth. Legal scholars have long recognized that copyright and patent are not the only options. And while some legal academics have mentioned the possibility of groups of users and creators interacting on a voluntary but structured basis, legal scholars did not give much sustained attention to such possibilities until fairly recently.

Costs, Norms, And Inertia: Avoiding An Anticommons For Proprietary Research Tools, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Book Chapters

A decade ago the scientific community was sounding alann bells about the impact of intellectual property on the ability of scientists to do their work. Protracted negotiations over access to patented mice and genes, scientific databases, and tangible research materials all pointed toward the same conclusion: that intellectual property claims were undennining traditional sharing norms to the detriment of science. Michael Heller and I highlighted one dimension of this concern: that too many intellectual property rights in 'upstream' research results could paradoxically restrict 'downstream' research and product development by making it too costly and burdensome to collect all the necessary …

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 3 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 2 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso (Counsel For Google), Margret Caruso

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Google's Opposition To Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Google

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xvi, Tab 53 - Declaration Of Henry Lien In Support Of Google's Reply Memorandum (Counsel For Google), Henry Lien

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xix, Tab 56 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

In Re Bilski And The “Machine-Or-Transformation” Test: Receding Boundaries For Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Matthew Moore

Duke Law & Technology Review

In order for a hopeful applicant to be granted a patent over his invention, his application must satisfy several procedural and substantive requirements. Among the substantive hurdles that an applicant must clear is the mandate that patents only be issued to applications claiming statutory subject matter within the meaning of §101 of the Patent Act. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has not construed that Section consistently over the years. Since that court’s formation in 1982, it has espoused two tests for statutory subject matter, and each time has substantially abrogated, if not overruled, the …