Denver University Law Review, 2001/01/01, Vol: 79, p279
civil procedure, communications law, computer internet law, copyright law, evidence, governments, and patent law
I. Introduction The United States Constitution vests in Congress the power to protect the creative works of authors and inventors. 1 In order to facilitate technological advancement, Congress has utilized its express constitutional authority by making necessary changes to federal copyright law. 2 The Federal Copyright Act is an example of modernization of Congressional copyright law. 3 At present, United States copyright law protects an artist's work from the moment the work is completed, regardless of whether the artist has notified the public of the work's authorship. 4 Alternatively, innovative technology has also demanded that Congress provide the general public with exceptions and defenses to an alleged violation of copyright law. 5 Consumers have the ability to reproduce copyrighted works with the aid of advanced technologies through the use of photographic cameras, video recorders, and dual cassette decks. The Audio Home Recording Act is one example of Congressional efforts to minimize consumer liability when using these products. 6 The Act insulates individuals from liability for the manufacture or distribution of devices that digitally record audio mediums, or for employing these mechanisms in a noncommercial fashion. 7 Another example is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which shields Internet service providers from liability based on use of the network by subscribers. 8 Despite Congressional efforts, legislative responses to ever-changing computer technology are often outdated upon introduction. 9 The courts' propensity to defer to Congress regarding copyright law compounds this problem. 10 Traditionally, courts have "refused to unilaterally ...
Denver University Law Review, 2007/01/01, Vol: 84, p955
civil procedure, constitutional law, contracts law, copyright law, governments, and patent law
Introduction Copyright is one of the oldest institutionally protected rights in the United States. The notion of federally protected copyright originated in the United States Constitution in 1787. 1 One of the powers the Constitution grants to Congress is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." 2 What is omitted from these instructions is how the government should promote progress and protect rights. To what extent must the government protect these rights? How can citizens raise grievances that their rights have been infringed upon? Who should hear and adjudicate these grievances? Although copyright was not a prominent issue in the early years of the republic, advances in technology have greatly increased the number and variety of actual and potential copyright cases. Cases involving copyright issues present one persistent jurisdictional question: what makes a copyright case a federal case? Copyright owners regularly license or assign their rights in contractual agreements and the breach of such an agreement may give rise to a breach of contract claim, a claim for copyright infringement, or both. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1338(a), the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases. 3 Yet determining when a case is a "copyright" case is not always straightforward. Infringement of copyright is a violation of the federal Copyright Act and therefore a federal claim. 4 However, breach of contract is a state law ...
Denver University Law Review, 2006/01/01, Vol: 84, p267
antitrust trade law, constitutional law, contracts law, copyright law, criminal law procedure, evidence, governments, international trade law, and patent law
Introduction The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink 1 was "whether, in a claim based on unlawful tying under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the existence of a patent on the tying product raises a presumption that the patent holder has market power," 2 thus rendering the tying agreement illegal per se. In a decision that logically followed the United States Supreme Court's and Congress's more recent expansion of patent holder rights, the Court held that the existence of a patent does not presumptively confer market power on patent holders. By abolishing the presumption, the Court rejected arguments to maintain an irrebuttable presumption of market power or to create a rebuttable presumption. In future patent tying cases, the moving party must now prove that the patent holder has market power under a rule of reason standard. By adopting a rule of reason standard, the Court moves away from equating the legal monopoly granted on patent-holders with the economic monopoly that is assailed by antitrust law. While providing only vague guidelines to assess this standard, the Court properly recognized that each patent is unique, and sufficient information exists to analyze the market power of the patented tying product. By permitting defendants to contest the issue of the market power of its patent, the Court has increased 1) the burden to prove the market power of the patent, 2) the importance and role of experts ...