DOCSLIB.ORG

Considerations in Drafting Settlement and License Agreements—Part I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Considerations in Drafting Settlement and License Agreements—Part I Considerations in Drafting Settlement and License Agreements—Part I By Paul Morico Previously published in the February issue of Intellectual Property and Technology Journal As any intellectual property (IP) attorney who has practiced for a number of years knows, drafting settlement and license agreements takes some skill. Most outside counsel do not have a lot of experience drafting such agreements, and even many in-house counsels only draft such agreements periodically. For those who have drafted more than a few such agreements, you know that it takes a lot of patience and, most importantly, requires great attention to detail. There are many provisions that need to be covered in these types of agreements, but equally important to making sure that all of the “bases are covered” is making sure that each of the clauses are comprehensive. The reason it is important for such agreements to be so comprehensive is that the goal of both types of agreements is to avoid future litigation. In some sense, pre-litigation license agreements can be thought of as a pre-nuptial agreement. In the case of a settlement agreement, the parties already have been in litigation and the goal is to keep the parties from going back to litigation. Because many IP settlement agreements contain many of the same terms found in a license agreement and because settlement agreements have some unique aspects to them, the first part of this article focuses initially on license agreements. The second part of this article, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, will address issues unique to settlement agreements. This article attempts to cover all of the major provisions in such agreements, but also some of the nuances in many of the key provisions. Much as most other aspects of practicing law, a great deal of our knowledge and wisdom is shaped by our experiences and this article naturally is confined to my limited personal experience. The Grant Clause Perhaps the most important provision of any IP license or settlement agreement is the grant clause. This is the clause where the IP rights are transferred from the grantor or licensor to the granteeor licensee.1 These clauses are the ones most often fought over by the parties. The tension that typically exists is that the licensor wants to retain as many of its underlying rights as possible while the licensee wishes to obtain as many of those rights as possible. The main question that needs to be asked by the licensor is whether licensor wishes to retain any of these rights for itself and whether it also wants to retain additional rights to license to other parties. Thus, the threshold question the parties typically face is will the license be exclusive, sole, or non-exclusive? A purely exclusive license grants all rights (except ownership) to the licensee, whereas a sole license allows the licensor to retain rights for itself to practice the invention. A non-exclusive license in contrast permits the licensor to grant rights to other licensees. Even these various ways of dividing up rights, however, can be further parsed. For example, the licensor can grant the licensee an exclusive or sole license in a particular field of use and either no license at all or a non-exclusive license in other fields of Austin Beijing Brussels Dallas Dubai Hong Kong Houston London Moscow New York Palo Alto Riyadh San Francisco Washington bakerbotts.com | Confidential | Copyright© 2016 Baker Botts L.L.P. use. For example, the owner of a patent to a certain Web site tool (assuming such a patent were valid these days under the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alice case) could grant an exclusive license to that tool for use in advertising vehicles only to a particular car company but then carve out other uses of the tool, for example, by other types of retailers. When parsing rights among different fields of use, it is critical to make sure that there is no overlap between such fields of use. That can lead to competing interests in the IP rights being licensed. In order to illustrate other issues to take into account in dealing with grant clauses, let’s look ata sample clause: Licensor hereby grants to Licensee and its Affiliates a perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty bearing (as provided in Article 3 below),non-transferable (except as provided below),irrevocable (such irrevocability subject only to Articles 4 and 5 and paragraph 6.1 below)license under the Licensed Patents to make, have made, use, off er to sell, sell, import and export Products coming within the scope of any claim in any of the Licensed Patents (the Licensed Products) anywhere in the world. As illustrated in this clause above, another term affecting scope in addition to exclusivity or field of use is territory. Will the license be worldwide, limited to the United States, or some other limited territory? One question the licensee should ask itselfis does it really need a worldwide license? It maybe that the licensor only has limited rights outside the United States or the licensee has no aspirations to expand outside a limited territory and thus does not need a license beyond a certain territory. The counter vailing consideration, however, is that often the cost for making the license worldwide is not any more or only nominally more at the time the license is being granted, whereas it may be much more costly at a later date. Transferability is another major term of the grant clause. Does the licensor want the licensee to have the ability to sell or license its rights under the agreement to a third party? This provision can become particularly sensitive when the IP right sat issue are trademarks. The law requires that the trademark holder police the quality of its mark. If the licensor is going to let the licensee grant third parties rights to their mark, the licensor will need to either police that third parties use of the mark directly or put into place certain standards and reporting required of the licensee. This can become quite cumbersome to manage. Transferability is sometimes less of a concern when the IP rights at issue are patents, especially when the licensor is not in the business and merely trying to extract value from its investment in the asset. Because of issues of moral rights and often an author’s desire to control the integrity of his or her work, copyright scan be similar to trademarks when it comes to the licensor’s willingness to allow the licensee to transfer those rights to third parties. Often, it is the licensee who needs to think hard about whether it needs the right to transfer rights to third parties. Frequently the licensee may not have the capacity or capability to manufacture the entirety of a product being licensed and thus may need the assistance of third parties in manufacturing the products at issue. In those scenarios, the licensee will want to insist on the ability to transfer the IP rights to third parties. The licensee will at the very least want to be granted “have made” rights so that it can have third parties manufacture all or part of the products at issue. This is an area in which the licensor may wish to exert some oversight. One consideration concerning transferability that the licensor will need to watch out for is exhaustion. Is the right’s holder getting paid for the IP rights transferred? On the other side of the equation, are the licensee and/or sub-licensee paying twice for the rights transferred? Some thought needs to go into this question. The licensee/sub-licensee should not have to pay twice for the IP rights being granted, yet the licensor should at least get its fair share. This issue was presented in Quanta Computer ,Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.2 In that case, the plaintiff, LG Electronics, owned three patents covering computer systems, including components and methods. LG had licensed these three patents to Intel. Under the license, Intel was permitted to manufacture and sell microprocessors and chipsets covered by the LG patents. The license contained a non-transferability clause, however, prohibiting third parties from combining the licensed products with components from another source. BAKER BOTTS Quanta was a computer manufacturer that purchased microprocessors and chipsets from Intel. Quanta combined the Intel products with non-Intel components to make computers that practiced LG’s patents. LG then sued Quanta for patent infringement. The district court denied summary judgment, holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply to method claims, and therefore ,did not apply to LG’s patents because they contained method claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply to method claims. Quanta then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On appeal, LG argued that the patent exhaustion doctrine should not apply to method claims because method patents are not connected to a product and cannot be exhausted by the sale of a product. Quanta argued that courts previously have applied the doctrine to method claims, and that, if the doctrine is not applied to method claims, patent owners could avoid the doctrine by including method claims in their patents. The Supreme Court sided with Quanta holding that even though methods are not sold in the way that a product is, “methods may be embodied in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights.”3 The Supreme Court concluded: The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law control post sale use of the article.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Bundle of Rights
    A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2004) Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. __________ A. THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHT 17 U.S.C. § 109 (2004) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration
    [Show full text]
  • What Is So Special About Intangible Property? the Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2010 What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The asC e for intelligent Carryovers" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 524, 2010). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 524 (2D SERIES) What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2010 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY? THE CASE FOR INTELLIGENT CARRYOVERS by Richard A. Epstein* ABSTRACT One of the major controversies in modern intellectual property law is the extent to which property rights conceptions, developed in connection with land or other forms of tangible property, can be carried over to different forms of property, such as rights in the spectrum or in patents and copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: the All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 28 XXVIII Number 3 Article 1 2018 Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Mark J. Abate Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Christopher J. Morten Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark J. Abate and Christopher J. Morten, Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action, 28 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 477 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol28/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Cover Page Footnote *Mark Abate, a Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, concentrates his practice on trials and appeals of patent infringement cases, and has particular expertise in matters involving electronics, computers, software, financial systems, and electrical, mechanical, and medical devices. He has tried cases to successful conclusions in U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission and has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is the former President of both the New York Intellectual Property Law Association and the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association, and is a board member of the Federal Circuit Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church V
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 8 1988 Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987) Joseph C. Vitek University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Joseph C. Vitek, Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987), 67 Neb. L. Rev. (1988) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol67/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Note Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings FirstEnglish Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................... 435 II. Background Cases ......................................... 437 III. Facts of FirstEnglish Church ............................. 439 IV. Analysis ................................................... 441 A. Ripeness for Review .................................. 441 B. The Just Compensation Requirement ................. 444 1. Physical Occupation, Regulatory, and Temporary
    [Show full text]
  • A General Overview of the Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy by Bruce Buechler, Esq
    A General Overview of the Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy By Bruce Buechler, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler LLP Editor's Note: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of Lowenstein Sandler LLP or any of its clients. n a bankruptcy case, a debtor has the ability to assume In addition, section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides I(i.e., affirm) or reject (i.e., disavow) executory contracts that when applicable non-bankruptcy law prohibits a and unexpired leases. A debtor’s ability to assume or reject contract’s assignment, it may not be assumed or assigned by an executory contract or unexpired lease is recognized as a debtor without the permission of the non-debtor counter- one of the primary purposes and essential tools available to party to the contract. Thus, in connection with licenses of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Code intellectual property, section 365 is fraught with difficulties. allows a debtor to keep in place favorable contracts, and Intellectual property contracts can consist of, among other discard and relieve it of burdensome contracts, and thus things, technology licenses, patents, copyrights, trademarks avoid future performance obligations under such contracts. and/or trade secrets. If the debtor assumes a contract, it can compel the non- debtor contract party to continue to perform. Likewise, a In determining whether an intellectual property agreement is debtor has the ability to assume and assign (i.e., sell) the an “executory contract” within the meaning of section 365(c) contract to a third party, notwithstanding most provisions and, therefore, potentially subject to assumption, many in a contract or lease, that would prohibit or restrict the courts make a distinction as to whether the agreement is an assignment of such lease or contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Rent Court for Landlords
    TIP28 Rent Court for Landlords If your case is about commercial property, talk to a lawyer. Frequently-used Terms . Landlord: The person or business that owns and leases housing to other people. Tenant: The person or group of people who rent and live in a property. Eviction: The removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord as the result of a legal judgment. Rent ledger: A written record of rent money paid by the tenant that you must maintain. Include date, amount paid, method of payment, and any outstanding balance. Service or service of process: How tenants are notified that a case has been filed with the court. The court or Sheriff will mail copies of the court notice. The Sheriff’s Department will also post a copy of the notice on the door of the property. Right of redemption. The right to redeem the property and cancel an eviction by paying all rent due, plus costs, before the Sheriff executes the eviction. This is sometimes called “pay and stay.” . Warrant of restitution. This court document indicates that the court authorizes an eviction. If rent is not paid and the judge signs the warrant, the warrant is forwarded to the Sheriff’s Department to schedule an eviction. Licensing. Many areas in Maryland require a landlord to get a housing registration license before renting residential property to a tenant. You may be required to file a lead certificate. Maryland law requires owners of rental properties built before 1978 to register their units with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
    [Show full text]
  • US States and Territories Modifying
    U.S. States and Territories Modifying Licensure Requirements for Physicians in Response to COVID-19 (Out-of-state physicians in-person practice; license renewals) Last Updated: September 15, 2021 States with Waivers: 22 + DC + GU + USVI States with Waivers, not allowing new applications: 0 States without Waivers (or closed waivers): 28 States allowing OOS physicians long-term or permanent privileges: 4 + CNMI + PR On January 28, 2021, HHS announced the fifth amendment to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, authorizing any healthcare provider who is licensed or certified in a state to prescribe, dispense, or administer COVID-19 vaccines in any other state or U.S. territory. The amendment also authorizes any physician, registered nurse, or practical nurse whose license or certification expired within the past five years to partake in the immunization effort, but first must complete a CDC Vaccine Training and an on-site observation period by a currently practicing healthcare professional. State Note Citation • The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and the Medical Licensure Commission have adopted emergency administrative rules and procedures allowing for the emergency ALBME Press Release licensing of qualified medical personnel. These measures will allow physicians and physician assistants who possess full and unrestricted medical licenses from appropriate medical licensing agencies to apply for and receive temporary emergency licenses to Board of Med Guidance practice in Alabama for the duration of the declared COVID-19 health emergency. • Re: renewals - The Board and Commission recognize the difficulty licensees may have meeting the annual continuing medical education requirement in 2020 due to the public Temporary Emergency health emergency.
    [Show full text]
  • License Interest Transfer Application
    Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Business ID: Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) Toll-Free: 866-813-0011 - www.michigan.gov/lcc Request ID: License Interest Transfer Application (For MLCC Use Only) (Authorized under MCL 436.1529) For information on licenses and permits, including a checklist of required documents for a completed application, please visit the Liquor Control Commission's frequently asked questions website by clicking this link. Part 1 - Licensee Information Individuals, please state your legal name. Corporations or Limited Liability Companies, please state your name as it is filed with the State of Michigan Corporation Division. Licensee name(s): Address: City: Zip Code: Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN): 1. Are you transferring interest between existing stockholders, members, or partners ONLY? Yes No 2. Are you transferring interest to a new stockholder, member, or partner? Yes No 3. Are you transferring more than 10% of the total interest in the license(s)? Yes No • If you answered "Yes" to question 1, complete Parts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. If you have your own purchase, assignment, or transfer agreement , you may submit the documents instead of completing Part 3. • If you answered "Yes" to question 2, complete Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have your own purchase, assignment, or transfer agreement , you may submit the documents instead of completing Part 3. • If you answered "Yes" to question 3, a full investigation by the Enforcement Division may be required for the completion of this request. Part 2 - Inspection, License, and Permit Fees - Make checks payable to State of Michigan Inspection Fees - MCL 436.1529(4) requires that a nonrefundable inspection fee of $70.00 per license shall be paid to the Commission by an applicant or licensee at the time of filing a request for approval of the transfer in any licensing year of any of the shares of stock in a corporation from 1 person to another, or any part of the total interest in a licensed limited partnership from 1 person to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Fully, Even If Are Not Essential to the Use Or Purpose of the to His Web Site and Allowing Downloads There Is No Finding of Bad Faith Or Fraud
    NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 was not fair use, because it was not that attorney’s fees may be awarded in a tectable. While those features were not func- transformative, and was likely to harm the trademark action under the Lanham Act tional in the “traditional sense,” in that they market for Kelly’s work by reducing visitors where the defendant acted willfully, even if are not essential to the use or purpose of the to his Web site and allowing downloads there is no finding of bad faith or fraud. goods and do not affect their cost or without payment of a license fee. Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Ideal Roofing quality, they were functional because pro- Resolving what it described as an issue of Co., Ltd., 282 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2002). With hibiting their use would impose a “significant first impression under the 1976 Copyright that holding, it aligned itself with the Eighth non-reputation-related disadvantage” on Act, the Ninth Circuit held that an and Tenth Circuits, and against the Second, American Eagle. Denying competitors access exclusive licensee does not have the right to Fourth and Fifth. Section 35(a) of the to elements of the claimed trade dress, which transfer its rights without the consent of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), allows for included use of words such as “performance” licensor. Gardner v. Nike, Inc., 279 F.3d 774 a fee award in “exceptional” cases. The court and “outdoor” and certain primary color (9th Cir. 2002). In 1992, Nike signed an found that the legislative history of the act combinations, would “prevent effective agreement giving Sony the exclusive right to indicates that “deliberate” and “willful” competition in the market.” use a cartoon character in connection with conduct may make a case “exceptional.” In sound recordings and associated promotional the case before it, a fee award was justified Patents activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Takings 101 the Fifth Amendment Provides, “Nor Shall Pri- of All Economically Beneficial Use
    Legal Reporter for the National Sea Grant College Program The Volume 7:1, April, 2008 Takings 101 The Fifth Amendment provides, “nor shall pri- of all economically beneficial use. For instance, vate property be taken for public use, without in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the just compensation.” Courts will generally find a court found that a zoning ordinance prohibiting right to compensation when the government 1) all development on a property owner’s land directly appropriates private property; 2) physi- resulted in a regulatory taking.4 cally occupies private property; and 3) imposes If the regulation merely decreases the value a regulatory constraint on the use of property so of the property, it will not necessarily result in a severe as to deprive an owner of all economical- taking. The court will perform a multi-factor ly beneficial use. balancing test outlined in Penn Central The first and second categories might also Transportation Co. v. New York City5 to determine be called “eminent domain” or “condemna- whether or not there has been a taking. The fac- tion.” Eminent domain is “the inherent power tors include: 1) the extent to which the regula- of a governmental entity to take privately owned tion interferes with investment-backed expecta- property, especially land, and convert it to pub- tions; 2) the economic impact of the regulation lic use, subject to reasonable compensation for on the claimant; and 3) the character of the gov- the taking.”1 Condemnation is “to determine ernment’s interest, or the social goals being pro- and declare that certain property is assigned to moted by the government.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks Andrew Michaels The George Washington University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michaels, Andrew C., Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks (December 1, 2016). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2016-57; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-57. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2883829 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Andrew C. Michaels Patent Transfer DRAFT – Dec. 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks by Andrew C. Michaels* Abstract In the age of the patent troll, patents are often licensed and transferred. A transferred patent may have been subject to multiple complex license agreements. It cannot be that such a transfer wipes the patent clean of all outstanding license agreements; the licensee must keep the license. But at the same time, it cannot be that the patent transferee becomes a party to a complex and sweeping license agreement – the contract – merely by virtue of acquiring one patent. This article attempts to separate the in personam aspects of a license agreement from its effects on the underlying in rem patent rights, using Hohfeld’s framework of jural relations and the “bundle of sticks” conception of property.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide Evicted Poverty and Profit in the American City by Matthew Desmond
    Study Guide Evicted Poverty and Profit in the American City by Matthew Desmond Broadway Books | Paperback | 978-0-553-44745-3 | 432pp. | $17.00 Crown | Hardcover | 978-0-553-44743-9 | 432pp. | $28.00 e-Book: 978-0-553-44744-6 | $13.99 Also available in Audio Download “Evicted is that rare book that both enlightens and serves as an urgent call for action.” —William Julius Wilson, Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor, Harvard University, and author of When Work Disappears “This sensitive, achingly beautiful ethnography should refocus our understanding of poverty in America on the simple challenge of keeping a roof over your head.” —Robert D. Putnam, Professor of Public Policy, Harvard, University and author of Bowling Alone and Our Kids about the author MATTHEW DESMOND is the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University and codirector of the Justice and Poverty Project. A former member of the Harvard Society of Fellows, he is the author of the award- winning book On the Fireline, coauthor of two books on race, and editor of a collection of studies on severe deprivation in America. His work has been supported by the Ford, Russell Sage, and National Science Foundations, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. In 2015, Desmond was awarded a MacArthur “Genius” grant. www.EvictedBook.com • www.JustShelter.org • @just_shelter about the book In this groundbreaking book, Harvard sociologist and 2015 MacArthur “Genius” Award winner Matthew Desmond takes readers into the poorest neighborhoods of Milwaukee, where families spend most of their income on housing and where eviction has become routine—a vicious cycle that deepens our country’s vast inequality.
    [Show full text]