DOCSLIB.ORG

Wrote Books About the Plaintiffs’ Original Shorthand Systems: Brief English Systems, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

No. 18-956 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF 72 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PAMELA SAMUELSON CATHERINE CRUMP UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Counsel of Record BERKELEY, SCHOOL OF LAW SAMUELSON LAW, 892 Simon Hall TECHNOLOGY & PUBLIC Berkeley, CA 94720 POLICY CLINIC UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, SCHOOL OF LAW 353 Boalt Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 (510) 292-6860 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 3 I. This Court’s Precedents, the Text of the Copyright Act, and Sound Copyright Policy Require the Exclusion of Program Inter- faces from Copyright’s Scope ...................... 3 A. This Court Originated the Exclusion of Systems, Methods, and Their Constitu- ent Elements from the Scope of Copy- right Protection .................................... 6 B. Congress Codified the Well-Established Exclusion of Systems and Methods in § 102(b) ................................................. 11 C. The Federal Circuit’s Oracle Decision Ig- nored the § 102(b) System/Method Exclu- sions ..................................................... 12 1. The Method and System Exclusions of § 102(b) Avert Patent/Copyright Overlaps .......................................... 14 2. Unprotectable Elements in Computer Programs Must Be Filtered Out Be- fore Assessing Infringement .............. 15 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 3. Methods and Systems Are Part of Program Structure, Sequence, and Organization, so SSO Obscures Ra- ther Than Clarifies Expressive As- pects of Software ............................. 16 D. Key Post-1976 Act Decisions Follow Baker in Excluding Methods, Systems, and Their Constituent Elements from Copyright’s Scope ................................ 17 E. Consistent with Baker and § 102(b), Program Interfaces Should Be Consid- ered Unprotectable Procedures, Meth- ods, or Systems .................................... 21 II. The Federal Circuit’s Merger Analysis Is Irreconcilable with Baker and Other Per- suasive Decisions ....................................... 22 A. The Federal Circuit’s Analysis of the Merger Doctrine Is at Odds with Baker in Three Key Respects .......................... 24 B. The Merger Doctrine Provides a Sound Basis for Holding That Program Inter- faces That Enable Compatibility Are Uncopyrightable ................................... 27 C. The Federal Circuit Ignored the District Court’s Fact Findings That Supported Its Holding That the Interfaces at Issue Were Unprotectable Under the Merger Doctrine ................................................ 31 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page D. The District Court Properly Held That Names and Short Phrases Are Not Pro- tectable by Copyright ........................... 32 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 34 APPENDIX: List of Amici .......................................... 1a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Aldrich v. Remington Rand, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 732 (N.D. Tex. 1942) ....................................................... 11 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ................................................................ 16 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983) ................... 28, 29 Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 22 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......................... 3, 14, 15, 29 ATC Distribution Group v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 33 Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880) .................... passim Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) ............................................................. 4, 30 Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) ......... 17, 18 Brief English Systems, Inc. v. Owen, 48 F.2d 555 (2d Cir. 1931) ........................................................... 11 Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) ............................................ passim Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ...................... 13 Griggs v. Perrin, 49 F. 15 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1892) ........... 11 Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2011) ............. 2, 18 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 3 King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ............... 12, 13 Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) ................ 29, 30, 33 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally di- vided Court, 516 U.S. 233 (1996) (per cur- iam) .............................................................. 19, 20, 21 Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) ............................ 15 MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 3 Mitel v. Iqtel, 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) ............. 33 Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967) .......................................................... 25 Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002) ....... 18 Perris v. Hexamer, 99 U.S. 674 (1879) ...................... 6, 7 Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................. passim Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................... 19 Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp., 390 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2004) (en banc) ..................................... 32, 33 Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990) ........................ 14 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) ................................................... 25 Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) ........................... 26 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ........................................... 22 STATUTES 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................ passim RULES 37 C.F.R. § 202.1 ................................................... 33, 34 OTHER AUTHORITIES Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS) and Computer & Communications Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996) (No. 94-2003)............... 6, 22 BSA Foundation, Software: Growing US Jobs and the GDP, https://software.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019SoftwareJobs.pdf ................................. 1 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 597 before the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, & Copyrights of the S. Comm. on the Judici- ary, 90th Cong. (1967) (statement of Arthur R. Miller) ...................................................................... 14 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Paul Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright (2015) ......... 27 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) ..................................... 13 National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, Final Report (1979) ................................................................. 30, 31 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (2019) ................................................. 27 S. Rep. No. 94-473 (1975) ............................................ 13 Pamela Samuelson, Reconceptualizing Copy- right’s Merger Doctrine, 63 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 417 (2016) ..................................................... 22 Pamela Samuelson, The Story of Baker v. Sel- den: Sharpening the Distinction Between Authorship and Invention, in Intellectual Property Stories (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss & Jane C. Ginsburg eds. 2005) ............................... 7, 10 Pamela Samuelson, Why Copyright Law Ex- cludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1921 (2007) .... 11, 14 U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 33,Works Not Protected by Copyright (2017), https://www. copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf ................................. 34 U.S. Copyright Office, Circular Update Guide, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circular-update- guide.pdf .................................................................. 34 U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copy- right Office Practices (3d ed. 2015) ......................... 27 1 INTEREST
Recommended publications
  • International Intellectual Property Law

    International Intellectual Property Law

    ee--RRGG Electronic Resource Guide International Intellectual Property Law * Jonathan Franklin This page was last updated February 8, 2013. his electronic resource guide, often called the ERG, has been published online by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) since 1997. T Since then it has been systematically updated and continuously expanded. The chapter format of the ERG is designed to be used by students, teachers, practitioners and researchers as a self-guided tour of relevant, quality, up-to-date online resources covering important areas of international law. The ERG also serves as a ready-made teaching tool at graduate and undergraduate levels. The narrative format of the ERG is complemented and augmented by EISIL (Electronic Information System for International Law), a free online database that organizes and provides links to, and useful information on, web resources from the full spectrum of international law. EISIL's subject-organized format and expert-provided content also enhances its potential as teaching tool. 2 This page was last updated February 8, 2013. I. Introduction II. Overview III. Research Guides and Bibliographies a. International Intellectual Property Law b. International Patent Law i. Public Health and IP ii. Agriculture, Plant Varieties, and IP c. International Copyright Law i. Art, Cultural Property, and IP d. International Trademark Law e. Trade and IP f. Arbitration, Mediation, and IP g. Traditional Knowledge and IP h. Geographical Indications IV. General Search Strategies V. Primary Sources VI. Primary National Legislation and Decisions VII. Recommended Link sites VIII. Selected Non-Governmental Organizations IX. Electronic Current Awareness 3 This page was last updated February 8, 2013.
  • Making Room in the Property Canon

    Making Room in the Property Canon

    Making Room in the Property Canon INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE. By Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez & Kali Murray. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. 368 pages. $40.00. Reviewed by Bela August Walker* I. Introduction Property is oft considered the province of the antediluvian, far situated from modern concerns, particularly issues of race and diversity. Even more so than other areas of legal academia, Property remains the province of dead white men. Courses and casebooks continue to hark back to Blackstone, the epitome of the antiquated.1 The thread of old English law continues throughout the semester, to the consternation of many a first-year law student. It should come as no surprise that Property is then viewed as lifeless, the course least accessible, least relevant, most obscure. Nonetheless, Blackstone once avowed, “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property . .”2 This adage may prove still true. If property is dead,3 long live Property!4 Integrating Spaces: Property Law and Race takes on one aspect of this potential impasse. Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez, and Kali Murray address a long-standing absence and bring the Property casebook into the twenty-first * Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law. For their sage advice and discerning counsel, I am indebted to M.J. Durkee, Sheila Foster, Jack Greenberg, Tanya Hernandez, Sonia Katyal, Jennifer Flynn Walker, and Patricia Williams. 1. Even Integrating Spaces cannot resist beginning its tale with the Englishman’s “‘despotic’ dominion.” ALFRED BROPHY, ALBERTO LOPEZ & KALI MURRAY, INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE 3 (2011) [hereinafter INTEGRATING SPACES].
  • The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis

    The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis

    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 33 Issue 5 Issue 5 - October 1980 Article 2 10-1980 The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathleen F. Brickey, The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis, 33 Vanderbilt Law Review 1101 (1980) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol33/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Jurisprudence of Larceny: An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey* I. INTRODUCTION The principle of harm is an essential component of criminal jurisprudence.1 It is important as both an element of crime2 and a measure of appropriate punishment.3 In a general sense harm im- plies infringement or destruction of cognizable interests," but the concept must be given more specific content if it is to assume a functional role in the development of coherent theory. As the no- tions of harm and protected interests are interdependent, defini- tion of the harm perceived to result from criminal conduct ulti- mately rests on determination of the legal interest sought to be * Professor of Law, Washington University. A.B., 1965, J.D., 1968, University of Ken- tucky. The author is grateful to Richard H. Helmholz, Professor of Law and Professor of History at Washington University, for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this Article.
  • The Essence of Property Law

    The Essence of Property Law

    Review: The Essence of Property Law FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN REAL PROPERTY LAW, 3d Edition. By Edward H. Rabin and Roberta Rosenthal Kwall. New York, New York: Foundation Press, 1992. Pp. xvi, 1092. Reviewed by Vada Waters Lindsey* I. INTRODUCTION I have taught property law for four years and, after considering other casebooks, I have always used Rabin and Kwall's Fundamentals of Modern Real Property Law.1 My initial reason for selecting this casebook had much to do with my comfort level in contacting Professor Kwall to discuss her use of the casebook and course content. She graciously supplied me with several syllabi she had used through- out the years and helped alleviate the anxiety that accompanies new class preparation. In addition, I found Rabin and Kwall's Teacher's Manual to be a useful tool because of its level of detail, including a reference list to scholarly articles analyzing every subject covered in the casebook. When my former Academic Dean asked me to consider teaching Property Law, I agreed to teach the course without hesitation. I was extremely excited to teach a course in property law-not because I would gain a strong understanding of the archaic rule against perpetu- ities, but because of my desire to help the students establish a strong foundation in transactional law. I taught Wills and Estates during my first semester of law school teaching, which was when the dean approached me regarding teaching Property. I was more than a little frustrated that students lacked a basic understanding of some funda- mental property law concepts, such as the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common.
  • The Rule of Reason in Property Law

    The Rule of Reason in Property Law

    The Rule of Reason in Property Law Joseph William Singer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RULES AND STANDARDS .......................................................... 1375 A. Conventional Analysis ..................................................... 1375 B. Legal Realism About Rules and Standards in Property Law ................................................................................. 1380 1. Why Rules Are Less Predictable than We Think ..... 1380 a. Informal Sources of Justified Expectations ............ 1380 b. Rules Do Not Determine Their Own Scope ........... 1383 c. Competing Norms Limit the Scope of Legal Rules .. 1385 * Copyright © 2013 Joseph William Singer. Bussey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Thanks and affection go to Martha Minow, Mira Singer, Lila Singer, Greg Alexander, Jane Baron, Bethany Berger, Eric Claeys, Hanoch Dagan, Nestor Davidson, Annie Decker, Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Mark Edwards, Kent Greenfield, Michael Kenneally, Gil Lan, Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, John Lovett, Hari Osofsky, Eduardo Peñalver, Stewart Sterk, Laura Underkuffler, André van der Walt, and Johan van der Walt. I would also like to thank all the participants in the Progressive Property Conference held at Harvard Law School in May 2012 and the Property Works in Progress Conference held at Fordham Law School also in May 2012. 1369 1370 University of California, Davis [Vol. 46:1369 2. Why Standards Are More Predictable than We Think ........................................................................ 1387 a. Exemplars and Precedent Make Standards
  • Goldstein, Paul

    Goldstein, Paul

    Paul Goldstein Lillick Professor of Law Stanford Law School Stanford, CA 94305 18 November 2015 David Kully Chief, Litigation III Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 450 5th Street NW, Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] Dear Mr. Kully: I am writing to you at the request ofthe National Music Publishers' Association ("NMPA") in connection with the Department ofJustice, Antitrust Division's request for comments on PRO licensing ofjointly owned works. By way of background, I have been Professor of Law (1975-1985) and since 1985 the Lillick Professor ofLaw at Stanford Law School, where I regularly teach courses in U.S., foreign and international copyright law. I have also since 1988 been Of Counsel to the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. I am sole author ofthe four-volume treatise, Goldstein on Copyright, (Aspen Publishers 3rd ed. 2005) updated semi-annually, and co-author with Bernt Hugenholtz of the one-volume treatise, International Copyright (Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 2013), as well as of law school casebooks on U.S. and international intellectual property law. A copy of my resume is enclosed. -1- The NMPA has asked me to provide my opinion on the following questions: 1. Do the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. ("Copyright Act"), and judicial decisions under the Copyright Act, permit the co-owner of a jointly-authored work to include in its license ofthe work to a third party a condition that, before exploiting the work, the licensee first secure a license from the other co-owner or co-owners of copyright in the work? 2.
  • Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine Or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau

    Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine Or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau

    Hofstra Law Review Volume 7 | Issue 1 Article 8 1978 Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Rau, Margot (1978) "Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic?," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol7/iss1/8 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rau: Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Re NOTES COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND: VIABLE DOCTRINE OR COMMON-LAW RELIC?* Prominent legal scholars have questioned their fascination with the common-law doctrine of "covenants running with the land."' Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that recalling his former in- terest in the subject gave him "a spell of the dry grins." 2 Judge Charles Clark doubted that this "narrow corner of the law" de- served to have any "more good white paper" devoted to it.3 Notwithstanding the ambivalence of Justice Holmes and Judge Clark, this complex doctrine persists. Confusion and uncertainty pervade reported decisions, as courts continue to apply this relic of the days of inflexible common-law rules. Judge Clark made a comprehensive study of covenants running with the land, based on case law through the 1940's. 4 He clarified much of the confusion surrounding the doctrine, and made sugges- tions for its proper judicial use.
  • Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines

    Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines

    TEXAS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PRESERVATION ACT GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose 1.12. Texas Attorney General Guidelines 1.13. Takings Impact Assessment Requirement (“TIA”) 1.2. Takings 1.21. What are takings? 1.22. Property Rights Act Definition of “Taking” 1.23. Incorporated Constitutional Definitions of “Taking” 1.24. “Regulatory Takings” or “Inverse Condemnation” Takings 1.3. Constitutional Regulatory Takings Analysis 1.31. Introduction 1.32. Federal Law 1.33. State Law 2. Applicability 2.1. Governmental Actions Covered and Exempted 2.11. Actions Covered 2.12. Actions Exempted 2.2. Takings Impact Assessment Procedures 3. Guide to Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.1. Requirements for Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.2. Guide to Evaluating Proposed Governmental Actions 3.21. Burden Analysis 3.22. Takings Impact Analysis Endnotes 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose “The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act,” Texas Government Code chapter 2007 (the Property Rights Act), represents a basic charter for the protection of private real property rights in Texas. 1 The Property Rights Act is the Legislature’s acknowledgment of the importance of protecting private real property interests in Texas. The purpose of the act is to ensure that certain governmental entities2 make a careful evaluation of their actions regarding private real property rights, and that those entities act according to the letter and spirit of the Property Rights Act. In short, the Property Rights Act is another instrument to ensure open and responsible government for Texans.
  • Intellectual Property Law

    Intellectual Property Law

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Intellectual property law seeks to identify and protect rights and responsibilities connected to the value of ideas. The advent of modern technology has raised the public’s awareness about the existence of intellectual property rights. This section will discuss some of the most common intellectual property interests. COPYRIGHTS The United States Constitution gives Congress the ability to establish a national system of copyrights and patents. United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 8. A copyright is similar to what it sounds like – a right to copy. The holder of a copyright has the exclusive right to copy, distribute, and adapt the work for which he or she holds the copyright. One may hold a copyright for various kinds of creative works, such as manuscripts, essays, art pieces, photographs, films, music, and lyrics. 17 United States Code §102. In most cases, a copyright is protected from the time the work is created until 70 years after the creator’s death. Registering a copyright has advantages, including the creation of a public record of the copyright holder’s claim, and a basis for bringing a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Infringement of a copyright may result in civil and/or criminal liability. The statute of limitations for criminal proceedings is five years, while for a civil action it is three years. 17 U.S.C. §507. PATENTS Copyrights and patents are easily confused but are two very different intellectual property interests. A patent protects an underlying idea, whereas a copyright protects the right to copy a work. Patents protect novel inventions.
  • Intellectual Property Fundamentals

    Intellectual Property Fundamentals

    Intellectual Property Fundamentals Presented by: The Intellectual Property Advisory Group © 2016 by the State of California, Department of General Services What is intellectual property? Intellectual property (IP) is a legal term that refers to creations of the mind, including an idea, invention or process that are protectable under copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets law. Common examples include: Books Sculpture Designs Discoveries Logos Phrases Software Symbols Words There are four main types of intellectual property: 1. Copyrights 2. Trademarks 3. Trade Secrets 4. Patents What is copyright? Copyright protects original work of authorship such as literary works, audio/video recordings, software, photos, and maps created by a state agency, department or by one of its consultants or vendors. Copyright law is governed by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17, U.S.C., section 101 et seq.) Examples of works of authorship: Presentations Books Brochures Copyright Protection The person who created the work is called the “author.” An author automatically has copyright protection for his or her original works of authorship once they have been expressed in a tangible form. Tangible: is it real; can it be touched or reproduced; is it something that can be perceived by the senses. The author has the exclusive right to do and authorize others to: 1. Reproduce the work 2. Prepare derivative work 3. Distribute copies of the work 4. Perform the work 5. Display the work Creation of Copyrighted Materials Copyright does NOT protect thoughts
  • The Constitution, Property Rights and the Future of Water Law

    The Constitution, Property Rights and the Future of Water Law

    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 1990 The Constitution, Property Rights and the Future of Water Law Joseph L. Sax University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Joseph L. Sax, The Constitution, Property Rights and the Future of Water Law (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1990). JOSEPH L. SAX, THE CONSTITUTION, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF WATER LAW (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 1990). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. THE CONSTITUTION, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF WATER LAW Western Water Policy Project Discussion Series Paper No. 2 Joseph L. Sax Professor of Law University of California at Berkeley NRLC Discussion Paper Series Copyright Natural Resources Law Center 1990 1990 Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Uw University of Colorado at Boulder PREFACE In 1988 the Natural Resources Law Center initiated the Western Water Policy Project with the support of a grant by the Ford Foundation. This project includes a broad-ranging review of the laws, policies, and institutions governing the allocation and use of water resources in the western United States. It is aimed at addressing the adequacy of western water policy to respond to the needs of the contemporary West.
  • Property in Land

    Property in Land

    Article Property in Land Robert C. Ellicksont CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1317 I. THE CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND .................. 1322 A. Three Simple Land Regimes .............................. 1323 B. Small Events: The Relative Ease of MonitoringBoundaries ........ 1327 1. The Genius of Individual Land Ownership ................ 1327 2. Technologiesfor Marking, Defending, and Proving Boundaries . 1328 C. Medium Events: A Simple Way to Promote Cooperative Relations ... 1330 II. THE ADVANTAGES OF GROUP OWNERSHIP OF LAND .................. 1332 A. When Returns Increase with Parcel Size ..................... 1332 1. Efficient Boundaries ................................. 1332 2. Large Events ..................................... 1334 B. Three Pioneer Settlements ............................... 1335 1. Jamestown ........................................ 1336 2. Plymouth .......................................... 1338 3. Salt Lake City ...................................... 1339 t Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School. I thank participants in workshops at the Harvard, University of Toronto, and Yale Law Schools for comments on a preliminary draft. I am especially indebted to Betsy Clark, Jim Coleman, Rob Daines, Harold Demsetz, Henry Hansmann, Jim Krier, Tony Kronman, John Langbein, Eric Rasmusen, Roberta Romano, Richard Ross, David Schmidtz, Peter Schuck, Jim Scott, Steve Shavell, Paul Stephan, Ed Zelinsky, and, as always, Carol Rose. Simon Frankel, Robin Kelsey,