chapter 7 intellectual property and internet law
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 7 Intellectual Property and
Internet Law
Chapter 7 Intellectual Property and
Internet Law
22
Introduction Introduction
Wealth consists of tangible and intangible property.Intellectual property (or “I.P.”) is becoming more important because the value of many corporations (e.g., Microsoft) is based primarily on I.P. See the “Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age.”
33
Constitutional AuthorityConstitutional Authority
Founders of America understood the value of I.P. and its impact on interstate commerce.
Article I § 8 authorizes Congress to “secur[e] for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
44
Types of Intellectual PropertyTypes of Intellectual Property
Trademarks.Service Marks.Trade Dress.
Patents.
Copyrights.
Cyberspace I.P.
55
§1: Trademarks§1: Trademarks
Overview at Bitlaw.com.Distinctive mark, motto or device or emblem that a manufacturer stamps, prints or othewise affixes to the goods it produces.Distinguish product/service from goods of other manufacturers and merchants.Avoids consumer confusion.
66
Trademarks [2]Trademarks [2]
Lanham Trademark Act (1946) creates incentives for companies to invest; prevents unjust enrichment of companies who infringe.
Federal Trademark Dilution Act (1995) Cause of action regardless of competition or confusion based on a “similar” mark.
77
Trademarks [3]Trademarks [3]
Register with U.S. Patent Trademark Office if:Mark is currently in commerce; orApplicant intends to put it into commerce
within 6 months.Registration allows use of “®” symbol.
88
InfringementInfringement
Whenever a trademark is copied or use, intentionally or unintentionally, there is infringement.
Trademark owner has cause of action against infringer,unless trademark is a “generic” term.
99
Trade DressTrade Dress
Refers to the image and overall appearance of the product.
Same protection as trademark.
Issue is consumer confusion.Example: distinctive décor, product names,
packaging of Starbucks coffee shops.
1010
Service MarkService Mark
Similar to trademark but used to distinguish services of one person/company from another.
Titles and character names used in media are frequently registered as service marks.
1111
Trade NameTrade Name
Trademarks apply to products.
Trade name applies to companies and are protected by federal law as well.Example: IBM, Coca-Cola, NBC.
1212
§2: Cyber Marks§2: Cyber Marks
Virtual property exists in cyberspace.
Cyber Marks: rights of trademark owners in cyberspace.Cybersquatting: occurs when person registers a
domain name that is similar to the trademark of another and offers to sell the domain back to the trademark owner.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Reform Act of 1999.
1313
Virtual PropertyVirtual Property
Meta Tags: key words on webpage that are indexed by search engines.Case Playboy Enterprises vs. Welles (1998).
Dilution on the Web.
Licensing: permits use of intellectual property by licensee.
1414
§3: Patents§3: Patents
Exclusive grant from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to make, use and sell an invention for 20 years.
Patent Infringement.
Patents for Software are now available.
1515
§4: Copyrights§4: Copyrights
Introduction to Copyright.
Intangible property right to author for her life plus 70 years.
Automatic protection after 1978.
Works can be protected by registration at U.S. Copyright Office.
1616
Copyrights [2]Copyrights [2]
Can only copyright the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
Work must be original and fixed in a durable medium: literary, musical, choreographical and dramatic works, pictoral, graphic and sculptures, films/ audiovisual/ TV/ sounds, computer software and archtectural plans.
“Work Made For Hire” for Employees.
1717
Copyrights [3]Copyrights [3]
Compilations of facts are copyrightable but the compilation must be “original.”Feist v. Rural Telephone Co. (1991).Bellsouth v. Donnelley (1993).
Infringment. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides for exception to liability from reproduction of copyright under the the “fair use” doctrine when material is used for criticism, comment, news, criticism, teaching, research.
1818
Software CopyrightsSoftware Copyrights
Computer Software Copyright Act (1980).Classifies computer software as a “literary
work.” Does not apply to “look and feel.”
• Lotus v. Borland (1996).
1919
§5: Copyrights in Digital Information
§5: Copyrights in Digital Information
Digital media can easily be copied.
Copyright Act of 1976Copy of a program into RAM is infringement.Revision or re-sale of freelance authors works can be
infringement. NY Times v. Tasini (2001).
No Electronic Theft Act of 1997.
MP3 and File-Sharing.Napster case.
2020
§6: Trade Secrets§6: Trade Secrets
Trade secrets are confidential, not filed with the government.Can be customer lists, formulas, pricing, etc.Theft of trade secrets is now a federal crime under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.Cyberspace: employees can easily email information to competitors.
2121
§7: Licensing§7: Licensing
Allows a third party to lawfully use a patent, trademark, copyright or trade secret.
The licensee pays the licensor (the owner of the IP) a fee for use.
U.C.I.T.A. is a uniform code that licenses the use of software.
2222
§8: International Protection for Intellectual Property
§8: International Protection for Intellectual Property
Berne Convention (WIPO).
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) of 1994 (WTO).
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty 1996.
2323
Case 7.1: Coca Cola v. Koke Co.(Trademark Infringement)
Case 7.1: Coca Cola v. Koke Co.(Trademark Infringement)
FACTS:Coca-Cola Company sought to enjoin The Koke
Company of America from using the word Koke for their products.
Koke defended that the Coca-Cola trademark, by its use of the Coca-Cola name, represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from coca leaves)-a fraud.
The trial court granted the injunction against Koke, but the appellate court reversed.
Coca-Cola appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
2424
HELD: FOR COCA-COLA. REVERSED.The Supreme Court underscored that Coca-
Cola was not “a medicine” and that its attraction did not lay in producing “a toxic effect.” Since 1900 sales had increased.
The name had come to characterize a well known beverage to be had almost anywhere “rather than a compound of particular substances.”
Case 7.1: Coca Cola v. Koke Co.(Trademark Infringement)
Case 7.1: Coca Cola v. Koke Co.(Trademark Infringement)
2525
Case 7.2: AOL v. AT&T(Trademark Infringement)
Case 7.2: AOL v. AT&T(Trademark Infringement)
FACTS:AOL sued AT&T alleging that AT&T’s use of the
phrase “you’ve got mail” was trademark infringement of the phrase, which AOL claimed to own.
AT&T filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the term was generic.
HELD: FOR AT&T. MOTION GRANTED. The term is generic and therefore can not be
owned by AOL. The court applied the “primary significance test,” re viewing five types of evidence
2626
HELD:“(1) competitors’ use of the mark, (2)
plaintiff’s use of the mark, (3) dictionary definitions, (4) media usage, (5) testimony of persons in the trade,” and dismissed a sixth type—“consumer surveys”—as indicating secondary meaning, which would not entitle a generic term to pro tection. The court concluded that “mail” means “e-mail” and that “you” and “have” do not change the generic nature of the term.
Case 7.2: AOL v. AT&T(Trademark Infringement)
Case 7.2: AOL v. AT&T(Trademark Infringement)
2727
Case 7.3: NY Times v. Tasini(Copyright Infringement)
Case 7.3: NY Times v. Tasini(Copyright Infringement)
FACTS:Magazines and newspapers, including the New York
Times, buy and publish articles written by freelance writers like Tasini.
These publishers sell the contents to e-publishers for inclusion in online, and other electronic, databases.
Tasini and other freelance writers sued the Times and the e-publishers, contending that the e-publication of the articles violated the Copyright Act.
The publishers defended that these were only “revisions” stored under databases and legal under the Copyright Act.
2828
HELD: FOR TASINI.The US Supreme Court remanded the case
for a determination as to how the writers should be compensated.
The Court found that these databases are not “revisions,” because the databases reproduce and distribute articles “clear of the context provided by the original periodical editions”—not “as part of that particular collective work” which the Copy right Act allows.
Case 7.3: NY Times v. Tasini(Copyright Infringement)
Case 7.3: NY Times v. Tasini(Copyright Infringement)
2929
Case 7.4: A&M Records v. Napster(Copyright Infringement)
Case 7.4: A&M Records v. Napster(Copyright Infringement)
FACTS:Napster allowed users to (1) make MP3 music
files stored on individual computer hard drives available for copying by other Napster users, (2) search for MP3 music files stored on other users’ computers, and (3) transfer exact copies of the contents of other users’ MP3 files from one computer to another via the Internet.
A&M sued Napster alleging infringement. The court issued a preliminary injunction. Napster appealed.
3030
HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR A&M.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s
decision that Napster was obligated to police its own system and had likely infringed the plaintiffs’ copyrights.
“Napster’s failure to police the system’s ‘premises,’ combined with a showing that Napster financially benefits from the continuing availability of infringing files on its system, leads to the imposition of vicarious liability.”
Case 7.4: A&M Records v. Napster(Copyright Infringement)
Case 7.4: A&M Records v. Napster(Copyright Infringement)