DOCSLIB.ORG

Reforming Copyright Law in the Digital

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reforming Copyright Law in the Digital Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 4-4-2008 Reforming Copyright Law in the Digital Age: a Comparative Study of the Legal Resolutions on P2P Transmission Between Taiwan and the United States I-Hsien Chiu Golden Gate University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Chiu, I-Hsien, "Reforming Copyright Law in the Digital Age: a Comparative Study of the Legal Resolutions on P2P Transmission Between Taiwan and the United States" (2008). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 20. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW REFORMING COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE DIGITAL AGE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LEGAL RESOLUTIONS ON P2P TRANSMISSION BETWEEN TAIWAN AND THE UNITED STATES By I-Hsien Chiu SUBMITTED TO THE GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STUDIES, IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQURIEMENT FOR CONFERMENT OF THE DEGREE OF SCIENTIAE JURIDICAE DOCTOR (SJ.D.) DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Professor Dr. Christian N. Okeke, Ph.D. (Amesterdam) DO Nor REMOVE FROM LAW LlI:U~)~RY Professor Dr. Sompong Sucharitkul, D.C.L. (Oxon) NOV 0 9 2009 Professor Dr. Sophie Clavier, Docteur en Droit (Paris) GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA April 4, 2008 Reforming Copyright Law in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of the Legal Resolutions on P2P Transmission Between Taiwan and the United States TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................ 1 1.1 Overview .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background of Digital Technologies ..... " ......................................... 7 1.2.1 Digital Format ................................................................... 7 1.2.2 The Advantages of Utilizing Digital Formats ............................ 10 1.2.3 Internet Networks .............................................................. 13 1.2.3.1 The Origin oflnternet Networks ......................................... 14 1.2.3.2 Development of the Network .............. " .......... " ................ 16 1.2.3.3 The Advantages of the Utilizing Internet Technologies .......... 19 1.3 Legal Issues of the Study ....................... " .................................... 20 1.3.1 The Tension between Copyright and Technology ....................... 22 1.3.2 The Viewpoint of Comparative Law ...................................... 24 1.3.3 The Viewpoint from International Copyright Law ........ " ............26 1.4 The Motive and Purpose of the Study ............................................. 29 1.5 The Scope and Methodologies Employed in the Study ........................ 32 1.6 The Structure of the Study .......................................................... .35 Chapter 2: Copyright Law in Philosophical and Historical Perspectives ..................................................................... 38 2.1 Intellectual Property Law ......................................................... 38 2.1.1 Concept ofProperty .......................................................... .38 2.1.2 Concept of Intellectual Property ........................................... .40 2.1.3 Features of Intellectual Property ..... " .. , ....... " .......... " ........... .41 2.1.4 Intellectual Property Legal System ....................................... .45 2.2 Philosophies behind Intellectual Property Rights ............................... .49 2.2.1 Theory of Natural Rights ..... '" ., .......................................... 50 2.2.2 Theory of Personality .................................................................. 54 2.2.3 Theory of UtilitarianI Economic Incentive .............................. 59 2.2.4 The Theories Implemented in Copyright Legislation .................. 62 2.2.4.1 European Position ......................... · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ······· .. · ... 62 2.2.4.2 U.S. Position ............ , .................................................. 64 2.2.4.3 Taiwanese Position .......................................................66 2.3. Copyright Law in Historical Perspective ................................ , .... 69 2.3.1 Introduction .................................. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ······· .. · .... 69 2.3.2 Evolution of Printing Press in England .................................. ·70 2.3.2 Censorship ........................................ · .. ···· .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · ... 72 2.3.3 The Birth of Modern Copyright Act: The Statute of Anne ........... 76 2.3.4 Contributions of the Statute of Anne ......................................79 2.3.5 Conclusion ........................................ ···· .. ···· .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ···· ... 82 2.4 Natural of Copyright ................................ ······························ .83 2.4.1 Introduction .................................. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ······· .. · .. · .. · .... 83 2.4.2 Controversies in Anglo-American Jurisdiction ..................... ·· .. 84 Chapter 3: U. S. Copyright Law and Technological Changes ........ 91 3.1 Evolution of Copyright of the United States ..................................91 3.1.1 Introduction .................................. · .. · .. · .. ···· .. · .. · .. ······· .. · .... 91 3.1.2 American Copyright in Colonial Period ..................................91 3.1.3 The First Copyright Act of the United States ............................92 3.1.4 Significant Changes of U.S. Copyright Law ..................... ······ ... 94 3.1.4.1 Major Revisions between 1909-1976 ................................. 94 3.1.4.2 Major Revisions after 1976 ............................................. 96 3.2 Protection of Copyright in U.S. Position ............ " ................ " .... " .99 3.2.1 Introduction ..................................... ·········· .. ······· .. · .. · ....... 99 3.2.2 Purpose of the U.S. Copyright Law ....................................... 100 3.2.3 Prerequisites of Copyright Protection .................................... 102 3.2.3.1 IdealExpression Dichotomy ..................... ···················· .. 102 3.2.3.2 OriginaHty ................................................................ 107 3.2.3.3 Fixation ........................................ · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ···· .. · ... 110 3.2.3.4 Formalities .................................... ·.··········.············· .. 112 3.2.4 Increase of Works Protected ...... , ....................................... " 115 3.2.4.1 Introduction ................................... ························ .... 115 3.2.4.2 Photography ...................................................... , ....... 117 3.2.4.3 Motion Picture .................................. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. ······· ... 120 3.2.4.4 Sound Recording .............................. ······················· ... 123 ii 3.2.4.5 Computer Program ..................................................... 125 3.3 Challenges of Peer-to-Peer Transmission .................................... 128 3.3.1 Introduction .................................................................. 128 3.3.2 Client-Server and Decentralized Models ............................... 129 3.3.3 Classifications of Peer-to-Peer Systems ................................. 132 3.3.4 BitTorrent ....................................................................... 136 3.4 Legal Controversies of Peer-to-Peer Transmission ........................ 138 3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................... 138 3.4.2 Liability of Manufacturer .................................................. 140 3.4.2.1 Betamax Doctrine ....................................................... 140 3.4.2.2 Manufacturer of MP3 Player ...................................... ... 144 3.4.3 Direct Infringement of User ................................................ 147 3.4.4 Indirect Infringement of Website Operator .......................... .. 150 3.4.4.1 Overview .. " .......... " .... " ................ " . " ........... , .. , ........ 150 3.4.4.2 Contributory Lia bility ..................... , ........................... 151 3.4.4.3 Vicarious Liability ...................................................... 153 3.4.4.4 Inducement Liability ................................................... 155 3.4.5 Fair Use Privileges ............................................................................... 159 3.5 Resolutions of Legislative Perspective ........................................ 162 3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................... 162 3.5.2 Digital Copyright Acts .. " . " ...................... " ............. " .... " .. 162 3.5.3 The No Electronic Theft Act (NET) of1997 ............................ 165 3.5.4 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 .... .................... 167 3.5.5 The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 ........... ... 170 Chapter 4: International Copyright Law and New Technologies .. 173 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................... 173 4.2 The Berne Convention ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law Sarah A
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 4 "Infringed" Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law Sarah A. Zawada Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Sarah A. Zawada, "Infringed" Versus "Infringing": Different Interpretations of the Word "Work" and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law, 10 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 129 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol10/iss1/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ZAWADA ARTICLE - FORMATTED 4/24/2006 6:52:27 AM “Infringed” Versus “Infringing”: Different Interpretations of the Word “Work” and the Effect on the Deterrence Goal of Copyright Law I. INTRODUCTION One of the key elements that courts use to determine an appropriate statutory damage award in a copyright infringement case is the number of infringements of a copyright.1 In most cases, the number of infringements of a copyright is obvious. For example, if a publishing company reprints an author’s copyrighted book without her permission, the author is entitled to one statutory damage award. Similarly, if a recording company includes one of a composer’s copyrighted songs without his permission on an album, the composer is entitled to one statutory damage award.
    [Show full text]
  • You Searched for Busy Mac Torrents
    1 / 2 You Searched For Busy : Mac Torrents You can use it forever, at no cost. Premium features can be purchased in the app. Also available on the Mac App Store. Requires macOS 10.12 / iOS 11 / iPadOS .... Apr 20, 2021 — If you search for the best torrent websites for Mac check out the ... Going to a cinema is not always possible with the busy life we all have to lead .... May 18, 2018 — BusyContacts is a contact manager for OS X that lets you create, find ... a powerful tool for filtering contacts, creating saved searches, and even .... We've posted a detailed account of our trouble with PayPal, and the EFF's efforts to ... This has not been ideal, especially of late since I've been so very busy with .... Back. undefined. Skip navigation. Search. Search. Search. Sign in ... Fix most file download errors If you .... 4 days ago — If you wish to download this Linux Mint Cinnamon edition right away, visit this torrent link. ... instilled by other operating systems like Windows and Mac. ... The system user has the option of dismissing the update notification when busy. ... Nemo 5.0 additionally lets a system user perform a content search.. Mar 23, 2020 — Excel For Mac Free Download Demonoid is certainly heading ... Going to a film theater is definitely not generally an option with the busy existence we all possess. ... To download torrénts conveniently we suggest best torrent client for ... You can possibly enter the name of your preferred show to search for it .... Jul 14, 2020 — You'll just need the best Mac torrenting client and a reliable Internet connection.
    [Show full text]
  • You Are Not Welcome Among Us: Pirates and the State
    International Journal of Communication 9(2015), 890–908 1932–8036/20150005 You Are Not Welcome Among Us: Pirates and the State JESSICA L. BEYER University of Washington, USA FENWICK MCKELVEY1 Concordia University, Canada In a historical review focused on digital piracy, we explore the relationship between hacker politics and the state. We distinguish between two core aspects of piracy—the challenge to property rights and the challenge to state power—and argue that digital piracy should be considered more broadly as a challenge to the authority of the state. We trace generations of peer-to-peer networking, showing that digital piracy is a key component in the development of a political platform that advocates for a set of ideals grounded in collaborative culture, nonhierarchical organization, and a reliance on the network. We assert that this politics expresses itself in a philosophy that was formed together with the development of the state-evading forms of communication that perpetuate unmanageable networks. Keywords: pirates, information politics, intellectual property, state networks Introduction Digital piracy is most frequently framed as a challenge to property rights or as theft. This framing is not incorrect, but it overemphasizes intellectual property regimes and, in doing so, underemphasizes the broader political challenge posed by digital pirates. In fact, digital pirates and broader “hacker culture” are part of a political challenge to the state, as well as a challenge to property rights regimes. This challenge is articulated in terms of contributory culture, in contrast to the commodification and enclosures of capitalist culture; as nonhierarchical, in contrast to the strict hierarchies of the modern state; and as faith in the potential of a seemingly uncontrollable communication technology that makes all of this possible, in contrast to a fear of the potential chaos that unsurveilled spaces can bring.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer-To-Peer
    Peer-to-peer T-110.7100 Applications and Services in Internet, Fall 2009 Jukka K. Nurminen 1 V1-Filename.ppt / 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen Schedule Tue 15.9.2009 Introduction to P2P (example Content delivery (BitTorrent 12-14 P2P systems, history of P2P, and CoolStreaming) what is P2P) Tue 22.9.2009 Unstructured content search Structured content search 12-14 (Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa) (DHT) Tue 29.9.2009 Energy-efficiency & Mobile P2P 12-14 2 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen Azureus BitTorrent client 3 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen BearShare 4 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen Symbian S60 versions: Symella and SymTorrent 5 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen Skype How skype works: http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0412/0412017.pdf 6 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen SETI@home (setiathome.berkeley.edu) • Currently the largest distributed computing effort with over 3 million users • SETI@home is a scientific experiment that uses Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). You can participate by running a free program that downloads and analyzes radio telescope data. 7 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen Folding@home (http://folding.stanford.edu/) 8 2008-10-22 / Jukka K. Nurminen PPLive, TVU, … “PPLive is a P2P television network software that famous all over the world. It has the largest number of users, the most extensive coverage in internet.” PPLive • 100 million downloads of its P2P streaming video client • 24 million users per month • access to 900 or so live TV channels • 200 individual advertisers this year alone Source: iResearch, August, 2008 9 2008-10-22 / Jukka K.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Meaning of the Intellectual Property Clause
    THE ORIGINS AND MEANING OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CLAUSE Dotan Oliar* ABSTRACT In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of historical and textual considerations in delineating Congress’ power and limitations under the Intellectual Property Clause. Nevertheless, the Court overlooked what is perhaps the most important source of information regarding these considerations: The debates in the federal Constitutional Convention that led to the adoption of the Clause. To date, several unsettled questions stood in the way of identifying fully the legislative history behind the Clause. Thus, the Article goes through a combined historical and quantitative fact-finding process that culminates in identifying eight proposals for legislative power from which the Clause originated. Having clarified the legislative history, the Article proceeds to examine the process by which various elements of these proposals were combined to produce the Clause. This process of textual putting together reveals, among other things, that the text “promote the progress of science and useful arts” serves as a limitation on Congress’ power to grant intellectual property rights. The Article offers various implications for intellectual property doctrine and policy. It offers a model to describe the power and limitations set in the Clause. It examines the way in which Courts have enforced the limitations in the Clause. It reveals a common thread of non-deferential review running through Court decisions to date, for which it supplies normative justifications. It thus concludes that courts should examine in future and pending cases whether the Progress Clause’s limitation has been overreached. Since Eldred and other cases have not developed a concept of progress for the Clause yet, the Article explores several ways in which courts could do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Pimps and Ferrets Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and Culture in the United States: 1831-1891
    Pimps and Ferrets Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and Culture in the United States: 1831-1891 Version 1.1 September 2010 Eric Anderson Version 1.1 © 2010 by Eric Anderson [email protected] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA Some Rights Reserved A Note on this Book Humanities academics in the United States generally receive little payment from the sale of books they have written. Instead, scholars write in an economy of prestige, promotion, and duty. Prestige comes from publishing with a reputable university press, from being well-reviewed in important academic journals, and from the accolades of academic peers. For a professionally young academic in the humanities at a medium-ranked institution in the United States, a peer-reviewed book at a mid-ranked University Press is essential for tenure and promotion. The doctoral dissertation (sometimes quite heavily revised) typically forms the core of this first academic book and sometimes several additional articles. Occasionally maligned, the the usual alternative to tenure is termination. Promotion (i.e. from Assistant to Associate Professor) leads to job security and a ten or fifteen thousand dollar increase in annual salary. In this context, book royalties are a negligible incentive. This book is a lightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, completed in December of 2007. After graduation, I submitted it to a small academic legal studies press, where it was favorably reviewed by the editor of that press and by a knowledgeable senior academic associated with the Press, and accepted for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Claiming Intellectual Property Jeanne C Fromert
    Claiming Intellectual Property Jeanne C Fromert This Article explores the claiming systems of patent and copyright law with a view to how they affect innovation. It first develops a two-dimensional taxonomy: claiming can be either peripheralor central, and either by characteristicor by exemplar Patent law has principally adopted a system of peripheralclaiming, requiringpatentees to articulate by the time of the patent grant their invention's bound usually by listing its necessary and sufficient characteristicsAnd copyright law has implicitly adopted a system of central claiming by exemplar, requiring the articulation only of a prototypical member of the set of protected works-namely, the copyrightable work itself fixed in a tangibleform. Copyright protection then extends beyond the exemplar to substantiallysimilar works, a set of works to be enumerated only down the road in case-by-case infringement litiga- tion. Despite patent law's typical peripheralclaims by characteristicand copyright law's typical central claims by exemplar, in practice,patent and copyright claiming are each heterogeneous, in that they rely on otherforms of claiming. This Article explores which forms of claiming promote intellectual property's overarching constitutionalgoal. "To promote the Progressof Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Au- thors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It considers how each sort of claiming affects the costs of drafting claims, efficacy of no- tice to the public of the set of protected embodiments, ascertainment of protectability, breadth of the set of protected works, and the protectability of works grounded in after- developed technologies. With the goal of stimulating innovation, I suggest that patent law can be tweaked by adding claiming elements more reminiscent of copyright law, namely central claims and claims by exemplar.
    [Show full text]
  • Eg Phd, Mphil, Dclinpsychol
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. TEST FOR ECHO: COMPETITION LAW AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRIES FROM A BUSINESS MODEL PERSPECTIVE Evgenia Kanellopoulou Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh, School of Law Academic year 2016/2017 DECLARATION I declare that this thesis was composed by myself and that the work contained herein is my own except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text. This thesis contains parts of work submitted to the University of Glasgow for the award of the LLM in International Commercial Law (academic year 2010/2011). Signed 1 Table of Contents DECLARATION ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE PATENT BATTLE THAT CREATED HOLLYWOOD by David Krell 10
    NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 VOL. 87 | NO. 9 JournalNEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Also in this Issue The Patent Battle Eight “Chiefs” That Created Criminal Justice Update Medical Malpractice Hollywood Proving a Joint Account By David Krell Simplify your everything. Your time is precious. That’s why Clio®’s intuitive design and powerful functionality will smooth out your processes and uncomplicate your overly-complex life. When your business systems are easy-to-use, intelligent and uncomplicated, you can put yourself first and prioritize your day accordingly. Simplify with Clio – the most complete and streamlined legal management solution around. We save you time. It’s up to you what you do with it. We’re the most comprehensive, yet easy-to-use cloud-based law practice management software. Join tens of thousands of legal professionals who trust Clio to manage and grow their firms. Start your free trial today at clio.com Simplify your everything. Clio® and the Clio Checkmark Logo™ are Trademarks or registered Trademarks of Themis Solutions Inc. ©2015 Themis Solutions Inc. All rights reserved. BESTSELLERS FROM THE NYSBA BOOKSTORE November/December 2015 Best Practices in Legal Management Entertainment Law, 4th Ed. NYSBA Practice Forms on CD 2014–2015 The most complete treatment of the business of Completely revised, Entertainment Law, More than 500 of the forms from Deskbook running a law firm. With forms on CD. 4th Edition covers the principal areas of enter- and Formbook used by experienced practitio- PN: 4131 / Member $139 / List $179 / tainment law. ners in their daily practice. 498 pages PN: 40862 / Member $150 / List $175 / Practice of Criminal Law Under the CPLR and 986 pages/loose-leaf Criminal and Civil Contempt, 2nd Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • 20191223115738971 18-1501 Liu V SEC Restitution Scholars Brief.Pdf
    No. 18-1501 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHARLES C. LIU et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. __________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________ BRIEF OF REMEDIES AND RESTITUTION SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER SIDE __________ Douglas Laycock Counsel of Record 2406 McBee St. Austin, TX 78723 512-656-1789 [email protected] QUESTIONS PRESENTED This brief addresses two questionss: 1. Whether “equitable relief” in the securities laws includes the longstanding equitable remedy of disgorgement, also known as accounting of profits, and 2. Whether disgorgement in the securities laws should be measured by the longstanding rules of equity, a measure that both petitioners and respondent appear to reject. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities .................................................. iv Interest of Amici ..........................................................1 Summary of Argument ...............................................2 Argument .....................................................................5 I. Each Party’s Position Seriously Overreaches ......................................................5 II. Disgorgement, or Accounting for Profits, Is a Long-Established Equitable Remedy That Imposes Liability for the Wrongdoer’s Net Profits—Not Gross Profits or Gross Receipts .............................................................9 A. Disgorgement of a Wrongdoer’s Profits Is a Longstanding Equitable Remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Retaliation to Innovation: How Existing Industries Greet New Technological Developments with Litigation and Hinder Industry Success in the Process
    Howerton Book Proof (Do Not Delete) 5/31/20 4:42 PM LEGAL RETALIATION TO INNOVATION: HOW EXISTING INDUSTRIES GREET NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH LITIGATION AND HINDER INDUSTRY SUCCESS IN THE PROCESS ALEXANDRA HOWERTON I. INTRODUCTION Innovation requires the ability to collaborate and share ideas with other people. — Bill Gates.1 But as “the pithy saying in the technology world” goes: If you can’t innovate, litigate.2 This frame of mind has created a culture where litigation is often the first means used by companies to dissuade competitors from developing technological innovations that have the power to decentralize existing industries. Over the past few decades, the Internet revolutionized the world and led to technological innovations that have in turn revolutionized a multitude of industries. Existing industry competitors greeted these new innovations with litigation, acting as an impediment to industry growth, until they eventually had to accept the innovations and adapt by designing business alternatives. If an industry embraced technological changes sooner by working with new, innovative companies, rather than against them, there would be more technological development with less time and money spent in litigation among companies. Increased technological development could lead to rapid industry advancement and create more opportunities for the worldwide market. This Note will begin by looking at the background of intellectual property law, paying special attention to the American patent system and the debate over whether or not this system supports innovation. It will then discuss major technological developments in various industries and examine how innovative companies are initially met with a barrage of litigation aiming to slow industry advancement.
    [Show full text]
  • Enough Is Enough Time to Eliminate Design Patents and Rely on More Appropriate C
    16 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 325 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2008 Article ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: TIME TO ELIMINATE DESIGN PATENTS AND RELY ON MORE APPROPRIATE COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK PROTECTION FOR PRODUCT DESIGNS Daniel H. Breana1 Copyright (c) 2008 Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas; Daniel H. Brean I. Introduction 326 II. The Original Purposes of the Design Patent Laws 328 III. The Historical Development of Copyright and Trademark Protection for Designs 330 A. How Copyright Came to Protect “Designs for Useful Articles” 330 B. How Trademark Law came to Protect “Trade Dress” and “Product Design” 332 IV. Comparing the Current Subject Matter of Protectable Designs Under the Patent, 335 Copyright, and Trademark Laws A. The Subject Matter of Design Patents 336 B. Copyrightable Designs for Useful Articles 338 C. Product Designs Under Lanham Act § 43(a) 342 V. Comparing the Current Standards for Infringement of Designs Under the Patent, 346 Copyright, and Trademark Laws A. Design Patent Infringement - The Ordinary Observer Test 346 B. Copyright Infringement - Substantial Similarity and Fair Use 348 C. Trade Dress Infringement - Likelihood of Confusion 351 VI. How Designers and Manufacturers Can and Do Protect Their Designs 354 A. Who is Receiving Design Patents 354 B. Designers Who Have Utilized Copyright and Trademark Protection in Addition to or 356 in Lieu of Design Patents 1. The Statue of Liberty 356 2. The Classic Coke Bottle 357 3. The Levi’s Pocket 358 C. Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc. - A Contemporary Case Study 361 VII. Reliance Interests in the Design Patent System 364 A.
    [Show full text]