Prawo autorskie, prawo własności intelektualnej, prawo komputerowe, prawo Internetu, prawo reklamy i promocji

Przez amerykańskie prawo komputerowe rozumiem wszelkie akty prawa stanowionego, zarówno na poziomie federalnym jak i stanowym oraz umowy miedzynarodowe, których stroną są Stany Zjednoczone a także prawo stanowione przez sądy i organy administracji publicznej, dotyczące szeroko pojętych zagadnień informatycznych. Zestawienie prezentowane poniżej zawiera najważniejsze sprawy sądowe (case law) oraz wybrane decyzje administracyjne. To zestawienie będzie dalej opracowywane w sytemie Wiki.

I. Jurisdiction
II. Contracts
III. Trespass to chattels
IV. Intellectual Property
V. Regulating content and speech
VI. Privacy
VII. Computer and Internet crimes
VIII. E-government
IX. Litigation

I. JURISDICTION

A. Specific jurisdiction.

• International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
• Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Pa. 1997).
• Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd., 96 F. Supp. 2d 824 (D. Ill. 2000).
• Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Va. 2000).
• ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002).
• Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).
• Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002).
• Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).
• Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004).

B. General jurisdiction

• Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 341 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003).
• Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).
• Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).
• Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003).

C. Criminal analogy

• United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2005).

D. Enforcement

• Louis Feraud Int’l S.A.R.L. v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

II. CONTRACTS

A. Browserwrap licenses

• Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Cal. 2000).
• Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (D. Cal. 2000).
• Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
• Comb v. Paypal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Cal. 2002).
• Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (D. Cal. 2005).

B. Shrinkwrap and clikwrap licenses

• Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
• Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
• Caspi v. Microsoft Network, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1999).
• ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
• Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
• Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998).
• Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
• M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000).
• Williams v. America Online, Inc., 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
• i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).

C. Terms Of Service

• Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Cal. 2007)

D. Software licenses

• Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elecs., 846 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
• National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993).
• ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
• Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
• Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
• Packeteer, Inc. v. Valencia Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21348 (D. Cal. 2007).

E. FLOSS licenses

• Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Ill. 2004).
• Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001).
• Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).
• SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 318784 (D.Utah, 2005).
• Wallace v. Free Software Found., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53003 (D. Ind. 2006).
• Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

F. Contractual and statutory liability for defective software

• Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
• In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
• In re SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329, (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

G. Auction sites and contracts

• Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8670 (Tex. App. 2007).
• Ewert v. eBay, Inc., 5:07-cv-02198-RMW (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2008).

H. Contracts agreed through e-mail

• Stevens v. Publicis, S.A., 2008 NY Slip Op 2880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Apr. 1, 2008).

III. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

A. Trespass involving spam

• Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Ohio 1997).
• America Online v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Va. 1998).

B. Trespass to online databases

• Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Cal. 2000).
• Buchanan Marine, Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co., 743 F. Supp. 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
• Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (Cal. 2003).
• Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).
• Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D. Pa. 2007).

IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

A. Copyright
1. Protection of computer software

• Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., 462 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Tex. 1978).
• Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
• Sega Enters. v. Maphia, 857 F. Supp. 679 (D. Cal. 1994).
• Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1569, 996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (E.D. Va. 1996).
• Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 516 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1996).

2. Reverse engineering, technological protection measures, anti-circumventions (17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1204)

• Hubco Data Products Corp. v. Management Assistance, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19515.
• Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
• Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
• RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
• Felten v. RIAA, No. CV-0102669 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2001).
• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
• United States v. Elcomsoft Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
• Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 326 (D.Me. 2003).
• Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
• 321 Studios v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
• I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Bershire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
• Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Cal. 2005).
• Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
• Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
• Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
• Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP, 401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).
• Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F.Supp.2d 1096 (D. Cal. 2007).
• Auto Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc. et al. (E.D. Mich. 2007).

3. Different copyright infringement issues (civil actions, DMCA, websites)

• L.A.Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (D. Cal. 2000).
• Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
• A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
• MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
• Tur v. Youtube, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50254 (D. Cal. 2007).
• Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks, 524 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.Y. 2007).

4. Derivative Works issues (framing, deep links)

• Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 2005, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1344, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
• Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
• Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997).
• Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. Communication Act, satellite programming

• DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007).

6. Virtual words

• Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593 (D. Pa. 2007).

B. Trademarks (domain names and unfair competition, search engines and trademarks, keywords)
1. Domain names as trademarks

• Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
• Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
• 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).

2. Cybersquatting

• Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000).
• Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).
• Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).
• Atlas Copco AB v. www.atlascopcoiran.com, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1828 (D. Va. 2008).

3. Free speech and fair use of trademarks in domain names

• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
• Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004).
• Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).
• Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005).

4. Keywords

• Orion Bancorp, Inc. v. Orion Residential Fin., LLC, 2008 WL 816794, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32483 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2008).
• Standard Process, Inc. v. Banks, 2008 WL 1805374, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31993 (E.D. Wis. April 18, 2008).

C. Databases

• West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986).
• Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
• Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).

D. Patents (software patents and business models patents)

• Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972).
• In re Application of Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
• Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
• Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. Supp. 1358 (D. Del. 1983).
• Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
• In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
• In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
• State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
• AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
• Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
• British Telecomms. PLC v. Prodigy Communs. Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
• Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

E. Trade secrets

• Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
• Ashland Management v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993).
• Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
• Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993).
• Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
• Avtec Sys. v. Peiffer, 38 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1922, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25901 (4th Cir. 1995).
• Garelli Wong & Assocs. v. Nichols, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3288 (D. Ill. 2008).
• Bank Julius Baer & Co. v. Wikileaks, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14758 (D. Cal. 2008).

V. REGULATING CONTENT AND COMMUNICATION

A. Pornography

• Reno v. Aclu, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997).

B. Defamation and information torts

• Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (S.D.N.Y. Misc. 1995).
• Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
• Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000).
• Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).
• Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
• Barrett v. Rosenthal, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
• Batzel v. Smith, 372 F. Supp. 2d 546 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
• Universal Commun. Sys. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007).
• Mazur v. Ebay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16561 (D. Cal. 2008).
• Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472 (7th Cir. 2008).

C. Spam

• Media3 Techs., LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention Sys., LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001).
• White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005).
• Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005).
• Phillips v. Worldwide Internet Solutions, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44152 (D. Cal. 2006).
• Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
• United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. 2007).

D. Liability of internet service providers

• Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Cal. 1995).
• United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003).
• ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).
• Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
• Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
• Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Wash. 2004).
• Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
• CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
• Charter Communs., Inc. v. Charter Communs., Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005).
• Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006).

VI. PRIVACY (cookies, adware, spyware)

A. Cookies, adware

• In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
• In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
• Directv, Inc. v. Jae Sun Chin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15815 (W.D. Tex. 2003).

B. Spyware

• Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
• Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
• Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

C. Other issues
1. Posting different types of information

• Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. Cal. 1998).
• In the Matter of Geocities, 127 F.T.C. 94 (F.T.C 1999).
• Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003).
• Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005).
• John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
• Federal Trade Commission, Gateway Learning Corporation; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69 Fed. Reg. 42176, (July 14, 2004).
• Lambert v. Hartman, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4019 (6th Cir. 2008).

2. Data retention and interception (administrative, civil and criminal aspects)

• Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
• McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C. 1998).
• Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (D. Cal. 1999).
• United States v. Kennedy, 81 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D. Kan 2000).
• United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001).
• Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).
• Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003).
• United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003).
• Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
• Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
• United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005).
• Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2277, 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1104 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
• O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
• Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).
• Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

VII. COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES

A. Hacking (system breach and/or data manipulation, etc.)

• State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1985).
• State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993).
• Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
• United States v. Sablan, 92 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996).
• Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
• Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Tex. 2001).
• United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2001).
• Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4846 (D. Minn. 2006).
• In the Matter of BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc., 2005 FTC LEXIS 134 (F.T.C 2005).
• United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Dos, DDoS, botnets

• Tyco Int’l (US) Inc. v. Doe, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
• United States v. Ancheta, case No.2:05CR01060, unpublished (C.D. Cal. 2006).

C. Viruses, worms, trojans, timebombs

• United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).
• State v. Corcoran, 186 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
• United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001).
• United States v. Pierre-Louis, 54 Fed. Appx. 691 (11th Cir. 2002).

D. IP crimes

• United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890 (D. Conn. 1978).
• United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).
• Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,658 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
• United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Pa. 1999).

E. Digital espionage, carding, e-banking robbery, online wars

• United States v. Middleton, 231 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2000).
• United States v. Harris, 302 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2002).

F. Pornography

• United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006).

G. Other

• People v. Fernino, 2008 NY Slip Op 28044, 1 (N.Y. Misc. 2008).

VIII. E-government (e-administration, e-voting, technological neutrality of the state, open standards) issues

• Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Cal. 2004).

IX. Litigation (e-evidences etc.)

• Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Federico Biancuzzi napisał artykuł zatytułowany “The Laws of Full Disclosure”. Jest tam mały fragment, w którym wypowiadam się na temat polskiego i europejskiego prawa.

Prawo amerykańskie. Sprawa Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Brennan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96276 (D. Conn. 2007).

At least one aspect of Plaintiffs’ distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on “mak[ing] the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others.” (Compl. 13.) This amounts to a valid ground on which to mount a defense, for “without actual distribution of copies . . . there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007)

Dalej sędzia Janet Bond Arterton prezentuje równie ciekawe wnioski, a kto wie czy nie bardziej interesujące, jeżeli chodzi o całe zjawisko pozywania użytkowników sieci/programów P2P.

In other similar cases brought by these Plaintiffs and other record labels, individual defendants have raised a host of colorable defenses; but due to the varying procedural postures, the viability of these defenses has largely yet to be conclusively determined. The defenses which have possible merit include: (1) whether the amount of statutory damages available under the Copyright Act, measured against the actual money damages suffered, is unconstitutionally excessive, see UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Lindor, No. 05-1095, 2006 WL 3335048, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding the defense non-frivolous); Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 588 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting the defense as to a 44:1 damages ratio); see generally Blaine Evanson, Due Process in Statutory Damages, 3 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 601, 637 (2005);2 and (2) whether the Plaintiffs and their recording industry peers, by bringing infringement suits like this one, have engaged in anticompetitive behavior constituting copyright misuse, see Lava Records LLC v. Amurao, No. 07-321 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2007) (motion to dismiss copyright misuse counterclaim pending); Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC, v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The doctrine of misuse prevents copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly.”).

Prawo polskie na podobny temat? Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. (Dziennik Ustaw Nr 24, poz. 83), tekst jednolity z dnia 17 maja 2006 r. (Dziennik Ustaw Nr 90, poz. 631).

Art. 116.
1. Kto bez uprawnienia albo wbrew jego warunkom rozpowszechnia cudzy utwór w wersji oryginalnej albo w postaci opracowania, artystyczne wykonanie, fonogram, wideogram lub nadanie, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do lat 2.
2. Jeżeli sprawca dopuszcza się czynu określonego w ust. 1 w celu osiągnięcia korzyści majątkowej, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności do lat 3.
3. Jeżeli sprawca uczynił sobie z popełniania przestępstwa określonego w ust. 1 stałe źródło dochodu albo działalność przestępną, określoną w ust. 1, organizuje lub nią kieruje, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 6 miesięcy do lat 5.
4. Jeżeli sprawca czynu określonego w ust. 1 działa nieumyślnie, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do roku.

Art. 117.
1. Kto bez uprawnienia albo wbrew jego warunkom w celu rozpowszechnienia utrwala lub zwielokrotnia cudzy utwór w wersji oryginalnej lub w postaci opracowania, artystyczne wykonanie, fonogram, wideogram lub nadanie, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do lat 2.
2. Jeżeli sprawca uczynił sobie z popełniania przestępstwa określonego w ust. 1 stałe źródło dochodu albo działalność przestępną, określoną w ust. 1, organizuje lub nią kieruje, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności do lat 3.

Po pewnym czasie w ukryciu a teraz w pełni oficjalnie mam zaszczyt i przyjemność przedstawić wam projekt o nazwie Class46. Jest to strona/blog dedykowana prawu i praktyce w zakresie znaków towarowych na płaszczyźnie europejskiej. Uczestniczę w tym przedsięwzięciu po zaproszeniu od Jeremy’ego Phillipsa. W naszym małym, ale bardzo ciekawym zespole, znajdziecie przesympatyczne osoby: jak Birgit Clark, Frédéric Glaize Julia Holden, Ignacio Marqués oraz Gino van Roeyen.

The successful strategy of Chicago plaintiffs firm Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro of representing patent-holding companies with strong infringement claims on a contingency basis has spawned many imitators.

The term “patent troll” was famously coined in reference to firm co-founder Ray Niro. But in the past few months the firm has been involved in such controversial situations that a question arises: Is this how a patent plaintiffs firm acts in middle age?
(…)
By that time Niro was involved in a growing spat with an anonymous blogger called the “Troll Tracker”. Niro doesn’t like to be called a “troll,” but Troll Tracker started referring to Niro that way. So Niro pulled out an old weapon. He e-mailed the blogger, informing him that he may be infringing on patent number 5,253,341.
(…)
For the moment, Niro and the Troll Tracker are at a standoff because the blogger refuses to reveal his identity. But Niro is willing to use his unorthodox tactics to surmount that obstacle. “I’ll offer $5,000 to anyone that can provide information that leads me to the identity of Troll Tracker,” Niro says, announcing the bounty publicly for the first time here in IP Law & Business. “I view these people [anonymous bloggers] as know-nothings,” he says, “afraid to reveal their identity.”

To fragmenty z artykułu na stronie www.law.com. No i stało się. Troll Tracker, a ściślej blog o takiej nazwie, prowadzony jest przez Ricka Frenkela.

The team behind the social BitTorrent client Tribler is responsible for the core P2P technology for the project, dubbed P2P-Next. The project received $22 million (15 million Euro) from the European Union and another $6 million (4 million Euro) is brought in by some of the partners.

Szczegóły w artykule na stronie www.torrentfreak.com. Tak więc po kilku latach, zamiast prób penalizowania technologii, jak to miało miejsce w USA, mamy podejście bardziej biznesowe. Jest ciekawie.

Poniżej umieszczam zestawienie wybranych wyroków amerykańskiego prawa autorskiego (w zasadzie to poprawnym pojęciem powinno być amerykańskie copyright). W przyszłości (w tzw. wolnej chwili) umieszczę do treści każdego z nich odnośnik z plikiem lub oddzielną stroną z dodatkowymi komentarzami. Zamierzam przenieść to opracowanie do systemu Wiki, poświęconego zagadnieniom prawnym z zakresu tzw. prawa własności intelektualnej i prawa IT.

I. Concept of Copyright
II. Copyrightable Subject Matter
III. Ownership
IV. Formalities
V. Exclusive Rights
VI. Fair Use
VII. Enforcement of Copyright
VIII. Federal Preemption of State Law
IX. International Dimensions of Copyright

I. CONCEPT OF COPYRIGHT

A. General Principles of the U.S. copyright

• White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1908).
• Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S 201 (1954).
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
• American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995).
• Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).
• Blienstein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).

B. Patents and copyright

• Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).

C. Trademarks and copyright

• Fredrick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 1191 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

D. Chattels

• Forward v. Thorogood, 985 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 1993).

E. Term of copyright protection

• Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).

F. Copyright to “orphan works”

• Kahle v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2007).

G. Copyright misuse doctrine versus competition law

• Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990).
• Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. AMA, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997).
• Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm’t, Inc., 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2003).

II. COPYRIGHTABLE SUBJECT MATTER

A. Original Works of Authorship

• Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
• Magic Marketing v. Mailing Services Of Pittsburgh, 634 F. Supp. 769 (W.D.Pa. 1986).
• Sebastian Int’l, Ind. v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd., 664 F. Supp.909 (D.N.J. 1987), rev’d on the other grounds, 847 F.2d 1093 (3d Cir. 1988).

B. The Ideal/Expression Dichotomy

• Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
• Morrisey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).
• Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally divided court, 516 U.S 233 (1996).
• American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir 1997).
• Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Colwell Systems, Inc., 893 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1990).
• Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley, 253 F. 2d 702 (2nd Cir.), certoriari denied, 358 U.S. 816 (1958).

C. Facts and Compilation

• Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
• Rockford Map Publishers, Inc. v. Directory Services Co., 768 F.2d 145 (7th Cir. 1985).
• Nash v. CBS, 899 F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990).
• Wainwright Securities v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1977).
• Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
• Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 979 F.2d 242 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
• Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998).
• West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986).
• CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994).
• BellSouth advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc., 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993).
• Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992).
• CDN .v Kapes, CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999).

D. Derivative Work

• Batlin & Son v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976).
• Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1416 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

E. Computer Programs

• Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
• Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems, 825 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mass. 1993).
• Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 34 USPQ2d 1014 (1st Cir. 1995).
• Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).

F. Pictorial, Graphic and Sculptural work

• Masquerade Novelty Inc. v. Unique Industries, 912 F.2d 663 (3rd Cir. 1990)
• Superior Form Builders, Inc v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co., 74 F.3d 488 (4th Cir. 1995), certoriari denied, 519 U.S. 809 (1996).
• Satava v. Lovry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003).

G. Separability

• Keiseltein Cord v. accessories By pearl., Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980).
• Carol Banhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1985).

H. Architectural Works

• Demetriades v. Kaufmann, 680 F. Supp. 658 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

I. Characters

• Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
• Warner Bros., Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954).
• Anderson v. Stallone 11 U.S.P.Q.2D 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
• Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
• Detectives Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publishing, Inc., 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).
• Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004).

J. TV formats

• Barris/Fraser Enterprises v. Goodson-Todman Enterprise, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146, 5 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1887 (S.D.NY. 1988).
• CBS Broad., Inc. v. ABC, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20258 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

K. Sound recordings (sampling)

• Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
• Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003).
• Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004).

L. Government Works

• County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001).
• Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).

M. Morality and public policy in granting copyright protection

• Belcher v. Tarbox, 486 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1973).
• Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979).
• Devils Films, Inc. v. Nectar Video, 29 F. Supp. 2d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
• Tunick v. Safir, 209 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2000).

N. Other

• Open Source Yoga Unity v. Choudhury, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10440, 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1434, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28 (D. Cal. 2005).

III. OWNERSHIP

A. Initial Ownership

• Adrien v. Southern Ocean County Chamber Of Commerce, 927 F.2d 132 (3d Cir. 1991).

B. Works Made For Hire

• Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S 730, 109 S. Ct 2166, 104 L. Ed 811 (1989).
• Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1992).
• Carter v. Helmsley- Spear, Inc., 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), 116 U.S 1824 (1996).

C. Joint Works

• Thomas v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998).

D. Transfer of Copyright Ownership

• Effects Associates v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990), cert denied, 498 U.S. 1103 (1991).
• Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1998).
• Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Fantasy, Inc v. Fogerty, 654 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

E. Renewals and Derivative Works

• Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 110S. Ct. 1750, 109 L. Ed.2d 184 (1990).
• Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir 1979).

IV. FORMALITIES

• Estate Of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D.Ga. 1998).
• Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991).
• Hasbro Bradely, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., 780 F.2d 189 (2d Cir.1985).

V. EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS UNDER COPYRIGHT

A. Right to make copies

• Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir 1998).
• Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. Denied, 330 U.S 851 (1947).
• Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir.), cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990) .
• Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
• Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992).
• Ringgold v. Black Entertainment T.V. Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
• Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960).
• Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).
• Educational Testing Services v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986).
• Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
• Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936).
• Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
• Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
• Kisch v. Ammirati & Puris, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

B. Right to make Phonorecords

• ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., 96 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1996).
• Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).

C. The Right to Prepare Derivative Works

• Horgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986).
• Micro Star, Inc v. Formgen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).
• Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997).
• Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Angramics, Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d. 2005, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22249 (C.D.Cal. 1998).
• National Geographic Society v. Classified Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D.Mass. 1939).
• Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976).
• Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F. Supp.130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
• Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

D. The Right to Distribute

• Fawcett Publications, Inc v. Elliot Publishing Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).
• Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’Anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998).

E. Right of Public Performance and Display

• Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Aveco, Inc., 800 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1986).
• Ocasek v. Hegglund, 116 F.R.D 154 (D. Wyo. 1987).

VI. FAIR USE

A. The application of the Fair Use Doctrine to the Creation of New Works

• Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
• Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
• Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
• Craft v. Kobler, 667 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
• Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).

B. The application of the Fair Use Doctrine to New Technologies of Copying and Dissemination

• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
• Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) (en banc), certoriari denied, 117 S. Ct.1336 (1997).
• American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995).
• Storm Impact, Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 13 F. Supp. 2d 782 (N.D. Ill.1997).
• Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999).

VII. ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

A. Damages

• Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985).
• Cream Records, Inc. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1985).
• Engel v. Wild Oats, Inc., 644 F.Supp. 1089 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
• Felter v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 1279 (1998).

B. Costs and Attorney’s Fees

• Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S 517 (1994).

C. Individual, Vicarious, and Contributory Liability

• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
• Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996).
• A&M Records, Inc. v. Abdallah, 948 F. Supp. 1449 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
• Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D.Cal. 1995).

D. Overenforcement: Copyright Misuse

• Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Association, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997).

VIII. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW

• International News Services v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).
• Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel CO., 376 U.S. 225 (1964).
• Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964).
• Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
• Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S 470 (1974).
• Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989).
• Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986).
• National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997).
• ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
• Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
• Ehat v. Tanner, 780 F.2d 876 (10th Cir. 1985).
• Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 723 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
• Computer Associates International, Inc v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
• Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1993).

IX. INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF COPYRIGHT

• London Film Productions, Ltd. v. Intercontinental Communication, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
• Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney & Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe’ Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (en banc), certoriari denied, 513 U.S. 1001 (1994).
• Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publishers, 843 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1998).
• Curb v. MCA, 898 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1995).
• King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924).

Nie będę dużo pisał na ten temat, po prostu zobaczcie stronę http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov.

Opracowanie zatytułowane “Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study” dostępne jest na stronie www.globalintegrity.org. Zachęcam także do odwiedzenia projektu Wikileaks.

Welch’s is taking out full-page print ads in People magazine this month that give readers a chance to sample its grape juice by licking the ad. The front of the advertisement shows a huge bottle of the juice, while the back has a strip that peels up and off, with text that reads: “For a TASTY fact, remove & LICK.”

Welch’s hopes flavored strips make its ads stand out.

Marketers are excited about the prospects for lickable ads, but also have to deal with the “ick” factor. Since magazines are often passed from reader to reader (think doctors’ offices) there is a good chance that saliva could be left on the ad. Readers are supposed to peel off the entire sticker on the Welch’s ad before licking, says First Flavor, the company that developed the technology used in the ad. If someone doesn’t rip off the whole sticker, First Flavor says, the flap can’t reseal, giving people an easy way to know whether the ad has already been licked.

Więcej szczegółów w artykule na stronie www.wsj.com.

Ciekawie napisany i kolorowo ilustrowany wpis na stronie www.neatorama.com.

Opracowanie “A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects”.

Konferencja poświęcona będzie działalności i doświadczeniom kobiet tworzących innowacyjne rozwiązania w nauce i biznesie oraz prawom chroniącym ich dorobek intelektualny. Konferencji towarzyszyć będzie uroczyste zakończenie III edycji Konkursu – Plebiscytu “Kobieta-Wynalazca 2007”, organizowanego przez Stowarzyszenie Polskich Wynalazców i Racjonalizatorów wraz z “Przeglądem Technicznym”. Do udziału w konferencji zostali zaproszeni przedstawiciele polskiego parlamentu, administracji centralnej i samorządowej, świata nauki, organizacji społecznych i instytucji biznesowych oraz mediów. Program konferencji przewiduje także udział wielu przedstawicielek instytucji naukowo-badawczych oraz organizacji gospodarczych, które z powodzeniem wdrażają, w różnorodnych dziedzinach, nowatorskie rozwiązania naukowe, techniczne i biznesowe. Przewidywana jest także wystawa kwiatów, zorganizowana przez Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa w Skierniewicach oraz wystawa Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej w Warszawie pt. “Moda kobieca w czasopismach XIX –wiecznych”.

Szczegóły na stronie www.uprp.pl.

“I strongly believe that copyright protection for Europe’s performers represents a moral right to control the use of their work and earn a living from their performances. I have not seen a convincing reason why a composer of music should benefit from a term of copyright which extends to the composer’s life and 70 years beyond, while the performer should only enjoy 50 years, often not even covering his lifetime It is the performer who gives life to the composition and while most of us have no idea who wrote our favourite song – we can usually name the performer.”

Wypowiedź komisarza Charliego McCreevy. Publikacja prasowa (IP/08/240) Komisji Europejskiej z dnia 14 lutego 2008 r.

No negative impact on consumer prices

The Commissioner stressed that the proposal should not have a negative impact on consumer prices. “Empirical studies on the price effects of copyright protection show that the price of sound recordings that are out of copyright is not necessarily lower than that of sound recordings in copyright.

No negative impact on Europe’s external trade balance

The Commission has also looked at the trade implications of a longer term of protection and provisionally concludes that most of the additional revenue collected in an extended term would stay in Europe and benefit European performers. This is good for promoting Europe’s performers and the cultural vibrancy of European sound recordings.

Charlie, czy to są wszystkie negatywne wpływy jakie byłeś w stanie wziąść pod uwagę?