DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee for Justice As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee for Justice As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent 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 FOR THE COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT RYAN J. WALSH CURT LEVEY Counsel of Record COMMITTEE FOR EIMER STAHL LLP JUSTICE 10 East Doty Street 1629 K Street NW Madison, WI 53703 Suite 300 (312) 660-7639 Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] JACOB M. HAMANN EIMER STAHL LLP 224 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60604 Counsel for Amicus Curiae The Committee for Justice i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 5 I. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COPYRIGHT ACT CONFER EXPANSIVE PROTECTION OVER THE NATURAL RIGHT TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...... 5 A. The Copyright Clause Broadly Empowers Congress To Protect Authors’ Natural Right To Intellectual Property ......................... 5 B. Consistent With The Framers’ Far-Reaching Conception Of The Right’s Scope And Justifications, The Copyright Act Extensively Protects Authors’ Natural Right To Intellectual Property ......................... 9 II. SOUND TEXTUALIST PRINCIPLES DICTATE THAT ORACLE CODE AND ORGANIZATION ARE PROTECTED BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT ............ 12 A. Oracle’s Code Is A Protected Literary Work ................................................................ 12 B. Section 102(b) Does Not Preclude Copyright Protection For Oracle’s Code .......................... 15 C. The Merger Doctrine Does Not Apply ............ 20 III.WHETHER TO PARE BACK THE COPYRIGHT ACT’S PROTECTION OF COMPUTER CODE IS A QUESTION FOR CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT ........................ 21 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 25 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014) ...................................... 4, 23, 24 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................... 13, 20 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) .................................................. 8 Computer Associates Intern. Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) .................................... 20 Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall- Street.Com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) .............................................. 24 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012) ................................................ 15 Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010) ................................................ 21 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ................................................ 16 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., 886 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1989) .......................... 13, 14 King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ............................................ 21 iii Lexmark Int’l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) .......................... 13 Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int’l, 740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990) ............................ 11 Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) ............................................ 8, 19 Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1372 (10th Cir. 1997) ....................... 16 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) .............................................. 5 Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) .................................................. 6 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ........................................ 23 Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) .................................... passim Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S 207 (1990) ................................................. 24 Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) ....................................... 8 White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 (1908) ....................... 11 Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev. Inc. 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2014) ...................................... 20 iv Statutes 17 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................. passim 17 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................. passim 17 U.S.C. § 117 .......................................................... 13 17 U.S.C. § 201 ............................................................ 9 The Copyright Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 124-126 (1790) .... 9 The Copyright Act of 1831, 4 Stat. 436 (1831) ........... 9 The Copyright Act of 1870, 16 Stat. 198 (1870) ......... 9 The Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60-349, 35 Stat. 1075 (1909) ................................................. 9 Other Authorities 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (2019) ................................. 13 2 Patry on Copyright ........................................... 10, 19 Adam D. Moore, A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property, 21 Hamline L. Rev. 65 (1997) .................. 6 Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 56 (West 2012) ............................................................. 21 B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) ..................................... 5 v Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr. and Lee Hoskins, Property Rights: The Key to Economic Development 482 Policy Analysis (Aug. 7, 2003)......................... 11 Jessica Litman, Sharing and Stealing, 27 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 1 (2004) ...................... 8 John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (J. Gough ed. 1947) ................................................... 6 Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property 77 Geo. L.J. 287 (1988) .............................. 6 Randolph J. May and Seth L. Cooper, Liberty of Contract and the Free Market Foundations of Intellectual Property, 11 Perspectives from FSF Scholars 27 (July 29, 2016) ...................................... 7 Robert P. Merges, Justifying Intellectual Property (2011) ........................................................................ 6 Robert P. Merges, One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 1900 – 2000, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 2187 (2000) .......................... 11 The Federalist No. 43 (James Madison) ..................... 8 Thomas B. Nachbar, Constructing Copyright’s Mythology, 6 The Green Bag 2d 37 (2002) .............. 7 USPTO, Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update ........................................... 12 vi Yvette Joy Liebesman, The Wisdom of Legislating for Anticipated Technological Advancements, 10 JMARRIPL 154 (2010) ...................................... 10 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 Founded in 2002, the Committee for Justice (CFJ) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal and policy organization dedicated to promoting the rule of law and preserving the Constitution's protection of individual liberty and property rights. The Founding Fathers recognized that the right to security in one’s property is a sine qua non of liberty and forms a bulwark against an overweening government. CFJ focuses, in part, on the preservation of these principles at the intersection of law and technology, including intellectual property law. CFJ believes that the Constitution’s protection of intellectual property and physical property with equal force has helped to make the United States the most prosperous society in the history of the world. CFJ advances its mission by, among other things, filing amicus curiae briefs in key cases and educating government officials and the American people about the Constitution and the proper role of the courts. In addition to its considered views on the fundamental legal principles at issue in this case, CFJ offers subject-matter expertise. Before becoming an attorney, our President, Curt Levey, earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer 1 Pursuant to Rule 37.3, all parties consent to the filing of this brief. Petitioner Google LLC has provided blanket consent, and Respondent Oracle America, Inc. has provided written consent. No counsel for a party has authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amicus curiae has made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or submission. 2 science, worked for five years as a scientist at an artificial-intelligence startup company, and invented and patented pioneering technology for explaining the decisions made by machine-learning models. His experience writing code and seeking intellectual- property protection for his invention has informed CFJ’s views in this case. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Copyright Act furthers the design of the Constitution’s Copyright Clause. Underlying the original understanding of that Clause is a theory of natural rights under which the right to intellectual property merits the same protection as the right to tangible property. Because it reflects and strengthens that robust conception of intellectual property rights, the Copyright Act—repeatedly expanded to protect all manner of emerging technologies—has long been a driver of America’s unparalleled economic prosperity and has made the United States the global leader in software and computing. The Court’s task here is merely to apply that Act, with its extremely capacious protections, to Oracle’s creative expression
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]
  • Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, Or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2010 Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies?, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 831 (2010). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/375 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer* Abstract 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, andperform 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 the reproduction and distribution of works-including the works of others-areforbidden. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashicroft, have stated that these two regimes can be reconciled in large part by some mechanisms internal to the copyright system, and in particularthe fair use doctrine and the denial of copyright protection to facts and ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the 25Th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Tyler T. Ochoa Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Craig Joyce University of Houston Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Automated Citation Tyler T. Ochoa and Craig Joyce, Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. , 54 HOUS. L. REV. 257 (2017), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/961 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Do Not Delete 11/22/2016 5:54 PM HISTORICAL ESSAY REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: REFLECTIONS ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO. **Craig Joyce & Tyler T. Ochoa*** ABSTRACT 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., one of the Court’s landmark opinions in copyright law, and one that continues to define the standard of originality for copyrighted works in general and compilations of data in particular. The Feist case, however, was an unlikely candidate for landmark status.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred V. Ashcroft
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred v. Ashcroft Lawrence B. Solum Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/879 http://ssrn.com/abstract=337182 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1-82 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons CONGRESS'S POWER TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT* Lawrence B. Solum** I. INTRODUCTION: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT ................................... 3 A. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act ................. 4 B. ProceduralHistory ............................................................ 7 II. A TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COPYRIGHT C LA U SE .......................................................................................... 10 A. The Structure of the Clause .................................................... 11 1. The parallel construction of the copyright and patent powers in the Intellectual Property Clause .................... 11 2. The structure of the Copyright Clause ........................... 12 * © 2002 by the Author. Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this Essay for classroom use and for the inclusion of excerpts of any length in edu- cational materials of any kind, so long as the author and original publication is clearly identified and this notice is included. Permission for other uses may be obtained from the Author. ** Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow, Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University.
    [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]
  • Guarding Against Abuse: the Costs of Excessively Long Copyright Terms
    GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: THE COSTS OF EXCESSIVELY LONG COPYRIGHT TERMS By Derek Khanna* I. INTRODUCTION Copyrights are intended to encourage creative works through the mechanism of a statutorily created1 limited property right, which some prominent think tanks and congressional organizations have referred to as a form of govern- ment regulation.2 Under both economic3 and legal analysis,4 they are recog- * Derek Khanna is a fellow with X-Lab and a technology policy consultant. As a policy consultant he has never worked for any organizations that lobby or with personal stakes in copyright terms, and neither has Derek ever lobbied Congress. He was previously a Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow. He was featured in Forbes’ 2014 list of top 30 under 30 for law in policy and selected as a top 200 global leader of tomorrow for spear- heading the successful national campaign on cell phone unlocking which led to the enact- ment of copyright reform legislation to legalize phone unlocking. He has spoken at the Con- servative Political Action Conference, South by Southwest, the International Consumer Electronics Show and at several colleges across the country as a paid speaker with the Fed- eralist Society. He also serves as a columnist or contributor to National Review, The Atlan- tic and Forbes. He was previously a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee, where he authored the widely read House Republican Study Committee report “Three Myths about Copyright Law.” 1 See Edward C. Walterscheld, Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J.
    [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]
  • Legislative Department
    ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT CONTENTS Page Section 1. Legislative Powers ................................................................................................... 63 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances ............................................................. 63 The Theory Elaborated and Implemented ................................................................ 63 Judicial Enforcement .................................................................................................. 65 Bicameralism ...................................................................................................................... 70 Enumerated, Implied, Resulting, and Inherent Powers .................................................. 71 Delegation of Legislative Power ........................................................................................ 73 Origin of the Doctrine of Nondelegability ................................................................. 73 Delegation Which Is Permissible ............................................................................... 75 Filling Up the Details .......................................................................................... 76 Contingent Legislation ........................................................................................ 76 The Effective Demise of the Nondelegation Doctrine ............................................... 78 The Regulatory State ........................................................................................... 78
    [Show full text]