|
Author: Connie Davis Powell
| | auction court infringement internet liability online secondary service tiffany trademark
Volume 28 Issue 1 Page 1
|
| |
|
Author: Shane Witnov
AbstractSocial networking websites, like Facebook, contain a wealth of
data that can be useful in legal disputes and investigations. Some
information on social networks is publicly available, but much of it is
restricted to “friends.” This article examines when and how lawyers,
and those they supervise, may ethically and legally collect
information on social networking websites, and in particular, when
they may use undercover techniques and make friend requests to gain
access to restricted information. Although the case law is
occasionally contradictory and the rules are unclear, the article
analyzes the types of activities that are likely to be ethical and
unethical based upon existing precedent. Finally, the article proposes
minor changes to the rules to make them clearer and fairer. | | conduct ethical friend information investigator lawyer model network rule social
Volume 28 Issue 1 Page 31
|
| |
|
Author: Giancarlo F. Frosio
AbstractThe idea of the Library of Alexandria has powerfully expanded
over the centuries, embodying the dream of universal wisdom and
knowledge centralized in one single place. Digitization projects, such
as the Google books project, are reviving the hope that this dream
may come true. Moreover, the ubiquity of the networked environment
promises to open access to this über-library to everybody with an
Internet connection. Today the entire collection of human knowledge
may be only one click away.
Whether the dream of the Library of Alexandria will be achieved
by the Google books project is highly debated. Recently, a court
decision concluded that perhaps that dream is not within Google’s
reach at the moment.
In this paper, I will review the Google books project as both an
opportunity to discuss the orphan works problem and to examine the
copyright strictures impinging on digitization projects. In looking at
the Google books litigation, I will investigate the sustainability of
Google’s fair use defense before delving into the description of the
Google books settlement. I will then discuss the recent opinion from
the Southern District of New York rejecting the settlement in its
present form. I will argue that the Google books settlement is an
additional move towards propertization and privatization of culture,
although the settlement furthers the public interest as well. In
warning against this privatization, I will argue that we need a global
effort towards the creation of a World Digital Public Library. | | book copyright digital google library orphan project public right settlement
Volume 28 Issue 1 Page 81
|
| |
|
Author: Mark Jansen
AbstractThe U.S. Copyright Act grants copyright owners the exclusive
right to distribute their copyrighted works. The first sale doctrine,
codified in § 109(a) of the Copyright Act, curtails these distribution
rights by exhausting the owner’s exclusive right after the copyrighted
item is placed in the stream of commerce. However, it is not clear
whether the language used in the Act, “copies made under this title,”
is inclusive of copies manufactured abroad or limited to copies
manufactured in the United States. The Supreme Court recently
interpreted § 109(a) in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A.; yet,
the Court’s holding did little to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the
application of the first sale doctrine. The Court’s failure to resolve
the issue has the potential to cause significant harm to the U.S.
economy and eliminate the rights of consumers and small business.
This Article suggests that the solution to determining whether the
first sale doctrine is, in fact, applicable to copies manufactured
abroad, is to incentivize Congress to amend § 109(a) and bring it into
conformity with the true aims of copyright law—to promote
knowledge via creation and distribution. In doing so, Congress
should redraft this portion of the Act broadly to accommodate the
domestic sale of copyrighted goods lawfully manufactured and sold
abroad. This proposed expansion of the first sale doctrine will yield
new discoveries and stimulate learning in accordance with the aims
of copyright law. | | copyright copyrighted costco court doctrine first market omega owner product
Volume 28 Issue 1 Page 143
|
| |
|
Author: Colleen V. Chien
AbstractThe International Trade Commission (“ITC”) provides
injunctive relief from imports that infringe intellectual property to
“domestic industries.” Differences in opinion about what this term
means divide those who do and those who do not practice their
patents. Should they both have access to the ITC?
This article reviews the statute, its history, and its application to
this question. It agrees with the Commission’s finding in Coaxial
Cable that the design and history of the statute favor activity that
furthers the development and commercialization of technology, and
that a bright line test is not warranted, based on the statute. It does,
however, suggest two changes to more closely align ITC practice with
the statute.
The ITC should consistently apply the technical prong, whether
or not the complainant is practicing or non-practicing. The ITC’s
selective application of this requirement is inconsistent with the plain
language of the statute and disadvantages practicing complainants
relative to their non-practicing counterparts. In applying the
economic prong to 337(a)(3)(C) cases, the ITC should take into
account the statute’s design and legislative history. In doing so, it
should give greater weight to activities undertaken to transfer and
commercialize technology, and less to activities that do not. | | activity domestic industry licensing patent practicing product prong technology usitc
Volume 28 Issue 1 Page 169
|
| |
Download the article.