The Story of Graham v. John Deere Company: Patent Law’s Evolving Standard of Creativity (Patents) 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- is a famous case because touches on an issue—the standard of creativity needed to support intellectual property rights—that lies at the very heart of intellectual property policy. Creativity is what the field is all about. It is so fundamental to the law that it has a constitutional dimension: the intellectual property clause authorizes the creation of rights for creative work in writing and inventing, not for any class of labors that may happen to fuel progress. The issue has long and rich history, and a true scholar of intellectual property law finds the cases in that history inherently interesting because they delve so deeply into the process of human creativity—in all its intricacy and beauty, and with all of its human stories of challenge, disappointment and triumph.
- Thus, for example, an archeologist who, through great effort and expense, uncovers tablets containing an ancient story or a long forgotten invention is entitled to no copyright or patent to protect the find. This result is meant not to denigrate the hard work of the archeologist but merely to recognize that the intellectual property system of patents and copyrights is directed to a particular kind of human activity: intellectual creativity.
- , and its great riot of complexity is also its great attraction. The Court’s opinion recognizes the constitutional dimension of the issue, but at the same time, it weaves a compromise leaving Congress with broad powers to craft standards of creativity for intellectual property. The case is also an enigmatic milestone in the historical emergence of patent law’s creativity standard. While attentive to its century of precedents on the issue, the Court subtly rewrites some of that history so as to minimize the tension between the Court’s past teachings and the directions Congress enacted in the new § 103. In addition to all the jurisprudential complexities, there are the innovation stories themselves. Thus, we read of William Graham and Baxter Scoggin, two very creative individuals who both lose their patent rights because of the creative efforts of others whose work ...in the face of skepticism and disbelief. In these stories, we can see the practical side of the patent...
- ’s “grants and limitations” language into an authorization for stringent constitutional review of intellectual property legislation. This is surely a disappointment for scholars who had hoped to use this language from to support an active Supreme Court role in reviewing intellectual property legislation under the Constitution. But it is the more accurate interpretation of the
- —or rather, certain language in it—has often been invoked in broader constitutional debates about Congress’s power under the intellectual property clause of the Constitution. The most oft-cited language is from the following passage:
- Open Chapter
Introduction and Overview 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Many of the Stories illustrate more than the issue identified in the chapter title. Thus, it is possible to confine one’s reading to an individual intellectual property regime, and still encounter most of the issues common to the whole field. However, we believe that each of the Stories is written in a manner that will interest and instruct intellectual property students and scholars across the breadth of the field, without requiring particular knowledge of any of its specialized branches. For example, we believe students of patent law would learn from and enjoy the copyright
- Each Story may be viewed from several perspectives. They chronicle a variety of creative endeavors, but often tell broader tales as well. Several Stories offer considerable human interest, deriving from the historically notable or simply curious character of the parties, their lawyers, or the judges in the case. provide insights into the Framers’ intellectual goals, as well as into the close-knit society of writers, publishers, statesmen and judges in the early Republic. Indeed, a subplot emerges from these two Stories: the Story of Justice Story. glimpses into a very different world, an “odd mix of evangelists armed with even odder theories of nutrition and health.” But this Story, especially viewed together with , includes a subplot of its own: the Story of Justice Brandeis’ intellectual property and antitrust jurisprudence. Similarly,
- We chose these cases for the long shadow they have cast over intellectual property law. As the Stories demonstrate, however, sometimes the shape of the shadow does not match that of its progenitor. For example, neither scholars nor courts appear aware that the parties concocted the dispute in in order to establish a property right in the transmission of the news. for IP STORIES), it would now seem that
- Of course, the legislature could impose more control over the development of intellectual property law. If Congress’ tendency has been more often to lead the advance than to retreat, the political economy may be responsible. Intellectual Property owners have long been effective lobbyists, and now have an increasing population of lawyers to draw upon. But the public is becoming more aware of intellectual property through technological developments such as peer-to-peer file copying, books aimed at general audiences, and articles in the popular press. With a swelling cadre of commentators, among them those committed to cutting back, we may come to see a wider range of solutions proposed and adopted.
- When we read the collected Stories, we were pleasantly surprised to see that, without intent aforethought, we had selected cases whose outcomes divided fairly evenly between upholding protection ( ). Perhaps our cases are not fully representative of the 175 years of intellectual property litigation from which they were drawn because they posed difficult issues, often at the limits of the law as it was at their times. The golden glow of even-handedness that the Stories’ assembly nonetheless imparts contrasts with today’s widespread perception that intellectual property law leans too heavily in favor of rightholders. Certainly one can point to federal statutory developments in all three fields that provoke this view. For example, the copyright term has been extended, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has created new violations; in trademarks the anti dilution act and Anti-cybers-quatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) expand the scope of protection; with the establishment of...
- Open Chapter
Author’s Bios 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Graeme W. Austin is the J. Byron McCormick Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law. A native of New Zealand, Professor Austin’s teaching, scholarly and research interests include intellectual property, family law, and torts. His publications include
- Intellectual Property Stories
- Graeme B. Dinwoodie is a Professor of Law, Associate Dean, and Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law, at Chicago–Kent College of Law. Professor Dinwoodie has also taught at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, and he has taught courses in international and EU intellectual property law at law schools in Poland and Germany. Professor Dinwoodie is the co-author of leading casebooks on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, International Intellectual Property Law, and International and Comparative Patent Law, and has written numerous articles on different aspects of intellectual property law. He holds a First Class Honors LL.B. degree from the University of Glasgow, an LL.M. from Harvard Law School (where he was a John F. Kennedy Scholar), and a J.S.D. from Columbia Law School (where he was a Burton Fellow).
- Rebecca S. Eisenberg is the Robert and Barbara Luciano Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. She has written and lectured extensively about biotechnology patent law and the role of intellectual property in research science and has played an active role in policy debates concerning intellectual property in biomedical research. Professor Eisenberg currently teaches patent law, trademark law, and FDA law and has taught courses on torts, legal regulation of science and legal issues in biomedical research. She serves on the Panel on Science, Technology and Law of the National Academies of Science and is a member of the Committee on Intellectual Property in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation of the National Research Council.
- Professor Dreyfuss is currently a member of National Academies of Science Committee on Intellectual Property in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation, having previously served on its Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge–Based Economy. She is also a Reporter for the American Law Institute project on I . She has visited at the University of Chicago Law School, University of Washington Law School, and Santa Clara School of Law. In addition to articles in her specialty areas, she has coauthored casebooks on civil procedure and intellectual property law.
- Open Chapter
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STORIES 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STORIES
- The Story of Graver Tank v. Linde: Intellectual Property Infringement in Flux (Patents)
- 1. Justifications for Intellectual Property Protection
- The Story of INS v. AP: Property, Natural Monopoly, and the Uneasy Legacy of a Concocted Controversy (Unfair Competition)
- The Story of Wheaton v. Peters: A Curious Chapter in the History of Judicature (Copyright)
- Open Chapter
The Story of Graver Tank v. Linde: Intellectual Property Infringement in Flux (Patents) 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Story of : Intellectual Property Infringement in Flux
- The Jones–Kennedy–Rotermund invention would also have a significant impact upon U.S. intellectual property jurisprudence. Enforcement of their patent rights would ultimately spawn nine reported judicial opinions, including two from the Supreme Court and four from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, spanning twenty years of litigation. The most significant of these, the 1950 Supreme Court opinion in intellectual property owner. This chapter reviews the story of
- A more narrow scope of intellectual property rights may also do a better job of promoting competition in the technology marketplace. Infringers of intellectual property rights may sometimes be lazy copyists, but often they are innovators themselves. Infringing goods may be directed towards new technological applications or new markets, and they not uncommonly improve upon, or simply work better than, the patented product. We can also generally expect that expanded consumer choice will lead to higher quality and lower costs —an environment that arguably existed during World War II, when Linde refrained from asserting the ’960 patent in order to promote the national welfare. Expansion of an intellectual property owner’s right of control may therefore have significant consequences for second-comers that have made their own contributions to the state of the art.
- framed the scope of protection issue as involving a balancing of competing goals. On one hand, innovators should obtain a scope of protection consistent with the aspirations of an intellectual property rights regime. On the other, competitors should receive an appropriate degree of notice as to the scope of the proprietary interests of others. Reflection upon these competing views offers some insight as to assigning the appropriate scope of control due to an intellectual property owner.
- majority, both fairness and efficiency arguments can be offered in favor of a narrow scope of intellectual property rights. Patent rights provide incentives to some, but they create limitations for everyone. Patent holders obtain the right to exclude others from practicing the patented invention, effective not only throughout the United States, but to some extent overseas as well. Further, in comparison to other intellectual properties, few restraining doctrines cabin the scope of patents. The Patent Act offers no fair use privilege analogous to copyright or trademark, for example, and the courts have been disinclined to develop affirmative infringement defenses on their own. ...-defined and predictable as possible, so that members of the public can confidently determine whether their conduct is permissible or not. Under this view, expanding a patentee’s property rights through the doctrine of equivalents defeats the public notice of patent claims and unfairly upsets the...
- Open Chapter
The Story of Wheaton v. Peters: A Curious Chapter in the History of Judicature (Copyright) 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- (indeed, the last great case decided by the Marshall Court) for none of the reasons usually associated with Marshall Court opinions. Its focus is not predominately constitutional, nor can it claim authorship by the Chief Justice himself or even by Justice Story. Rather, the “greatness” of the case lies in what it tells us about the Court itself—and in the critical doctrines of intellectual property law that it propounded or has come to represent.
- On the morning of March 18, 1834, Justice Story, acting, in what the messenger assured Wheaton were the Justice’s own words, “entirely on his own hook,” summoned the Court’s past and present Reporters to meet with him personally, in succession, in his chambers. Upon arriving, Wheaton was greeted by Story “in his usual cordial manner” and handed a memorandum which Story had been “authorized by the Court to communicate to” each of the litigants.Story likewise furnished to Peters, advised the parties that the decision of the Court, if handed down, would hold unanimously that no right of property did or could exist in the Justices’ opinions, and that they were without power to confer upon the Court’s Reporters any copyright thereto. As to the marginal notes and indices prepared by Wheaton, however, the Court had touched upon but not finally determined the litigants’ rights, believing that matter to be “a fit subject for honourable compromise between the parties … ”
- makes no pronouncement regarding the “public domain” by name. The term itself would not appear in an opinion of the Court concerning intellectual property law until . Instead, the Court’s collective thoughts, if any, regarding the “public domain” in intellectual property were, at best, inchoate at that date. Thus, the case provides intimations of what was to come, but
- Joseph Story to Sarah Story (Mar. 8, 1827), Story Papers, University of Texas Library, Austin, Texas. The post paid $4500 a year, plus expenses.
- Justices Story and Washington would play important roles in another early copyright controversy. R. Anthony Reese, The Story of
- Open Chapter
4. Scope of Protection 89 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Story acknowledged Upham’s “intellectual labor and judgment” in selecting the letters for his book, writing that “[f]rom the known taste and ability of Mr. Upham, it cannot be doubted, that these letters are the most instructive, useful and interesting to be found in [Sparks’s] large collection.” But Story appears to have concluded that selection alone, even if it represented “intellectual labor,” did not produce an abridgment. He seems to have understood “abridgment” as another Supreme Court justice did a few years later:
- Court found Story’s distillation of fair use principles “discernable” in Section 107’s list of factors for fair use analysis and aligned each factor with language from Justice Story. The “purpose and character of the use” factor “draws on Justice Story’s formulation, ‘the nature and objects of the selections made,’ ” and, Justice Souter explained, has as its central purpose “to see, in Justice Story’s words, whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation … or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message; … in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is transformative.’ ” , of course, deemphasized the relevance to infringement analysis of a copying defendant’s intellectual contribution—putting the older case in some tension with the importance that ...copyrighted work” used draws “on Justice Story’s expression, the ‘value of the materials used’ ”) and...
- Justice Story essentially confronted the same question that Judge Learned Hand faced in 1930 in , where Hand stated that “It is of course essential to any protection of literary property … that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations. That has never been the law, but, as soon as literal appropriation ceases to be the test, the whole matter is necessarily at large…” , Justice Story articulated a test for deciding when less than complete, literal appropriation is infringement: when the taking is substantial enough to injure the copyright owner. shifted copyright infringement analysis, minimizing consideration of the defendant’s own intellectual contributions to her work and emphasizing instead the effect of the defendant’s use on the plaintiff’s market.
- Story v. Holcombe
- For example, Story quoted an 1807 English decision that a book review could infringe the book’s copyright if the review extracted so much that it “communicates the same knowledge” and would “serve as a substitute for the book reviewed.” The cases Justice Story cites and discusses had focused on two considerations: whether the defendant had used intellectual effort to create a new work, and whether the defendant’s work would interfere with the market for the plaintiff’s work. But Justice Story’s discussion of the infringement inquiry strongly emphasized the latter issue, and paid little attention to the former. While the defendant’s mental labor appears relevant in Justice Story’s view, the dominant focus for determining infringement seems to be whether the defendant’s use will harm the value of the plaintiff’s work, even if the defendant has produced a new and valuable work.
- Open Chapter
1. Justifications for Intellectual Property Protection 58 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The case also serves to launch a general discussion on the nature of property rights. In the first-year property class, Lockeans who believe that property comes into being as a result of labor pit themselves against utilitarians who insist on weighing the costs and benefits of bestowing rights and denying them. The survey course on intellectual property uses to explore the tension dominating so much of intellectual property law: how to motivate creators to do their work while ensuring public access to the work once created.
- Intellectual property disputes, like all legal disputes, cannot be decided merely by invoking an idea as vague as the right to reap what one sows. Thanks to judges such as Learned Hand and the preemptive sweep of federal patent and copyright law, has become a doctrine that lives at the margins of intellectual property law.
- Nor is the principle Justice Pitney sets out of much use in environments in which the intellectual property questions can be treated in isolation. If the issue had been contested, he would likely have realized that the principle he was advancing needed to have discernible boundaries. News and indeed other forms of intellectual property generate benefits far beyond what the persons who brought them into being can or should be entitled to enjoy. We want to recognize the right of the creator to some reward, if only to ensure that others have the incentive to gather news in the future. But the right must be limited. As Benjamin Kaplan famously observed, “if man has any ‘natural’ rights, not the least must be a right to imitate his fellows, and thus to reap where he has not sown. Education, after all, proceeds from a kind of mimicry, and ‘progress,’ if not entirely an illusion, depends on generous indulgence of copying.”
- The Story of : Property, Natural Monopoly, and the Uneasy Legacy of a Concocted Controversy
- Stone did not understand the conflict between his notion of a property right in news and his belief that it was perfectly appropriate for AP to relay stories carried in London newspapers. This tension grew greater as the cost of transmitting information declined. Returning to the analogy, Stone’s idea makes sense in a world in which aqueducts are expensive and water is plentiful at the source. It is perfectly coherent to talk about recognizing a property interest in water coming out of an aqueduct but not water going in. When the cost of transporting the water declines dramatically, however, everything changes. One must protect water as property everywhere or nowhere. So too when the cost of transmitting information falls.
- Open Chapter
3. Freedom of Ideas and of Competition 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- posits an intellectual property universe in which some intellectual creations (original writings) are the subject matter of copyrights and others (inventive useful arts) are the subject matter of patents, it seems oversimplistic. This framework assumes that an intellectual creation is either a writing or a useful art (and can’t be both at the same time), and that once its nature has been discerned, the innovation can be consigned to the appropriate legal regime.
- opinion which constitute the core of the Court’s analysis mention the patent/copyright distinction. Most intellectual property casebooks edit out one or more, and sometimes all but a few, of the references in
- e.g., Symposium, Toward a Third Intellectual Property Paradigm
- so perhaps it was her husband’s creditors who provided the funds to hire a prominent intellectual property attorney to prepare a lawsuit against Baker. The
- Some intellectual creations, however, do not readily conform to this model. The practical effect of patents on functional designs in programs is to limit the ability of subsequent programmers to embody the patented functionality in independently written machine-executable code. Intellectual property lawyers differ in their views about the extent to which (if at all) there is overlap in what copyright and patent protect in computer programs and the consequences of overlap.
- Open Chapter
6.International Dimensions of Protection 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- between different domestic legal systems. In the trademarks context, an important initiative is the World Intellectual Property Organization and Paris Union
- Agreement on Trade–Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), Apr. 15, 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1125, art. 16(2).
- is not likely to get any easier to resolve as methods of global communication such as the Internet become more widespread. Public international laws offer some solutions. The most venerable treaty regulating trademarks is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Law of 1883, which establishes an international Union for the protection of industrial property, such as patents and trademarks. case, the Paris Convention requires member countries to protect “well known marks.” For a defined time period, a proprietor of a well known trademark can request the cancellation of the same or a similar mark owned by another party that is used for the same or similar goods. The Paris Convention also provides that marks not be registered if they are the same as or similar to marks categorized as marks that are “well known” in the countries where the new registration or cancellation is sought. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property has adopted the...
- So far, however, public international law initiatives have not addressed some key issues for international intellectual property laws that remain unresolved after
- The Story of
- Open Chapter
The Story of Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.: Breakfast with Brandeis (Trademarks and Unfair Competition) 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Cereal Wars and Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property Theory
- “Intellectual Property Theory.”
- Douglas G. Baird, The Story of : Property, Natural Monopoly, and the Uneasy Legacy of a Concocted Controversy, elsewhere in this Volume.
- had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act, it has been cited in numerous recent Supreme Court trademark opinions, and is a routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions of lower courts. The opinion is regularly invoked by scholars seeking to understand the theoretical underpinnings of intellectual property and to shape the development of trademark law. By any objective measure, the
- Open Chapter
5. Responses to Technological Change 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Lacking explicit precedent for the principle that living things may not be patented, the PTO was left to make a complex, and ultimately unpersuasive, argument for an inference about Congressional intent (or assumptions) concerning the patentability of living things from the fact that Congress had passed special legislation to provide intellectual property protection for plants. The argument went as follows: Congress twice acted to provide intellectual property rights in plants: first, in the Plant Patent Act of 1930, which conferred patent rights in asexually reproduced plants;
- The Story of
- , 248 U.S. 215 (1918), affirming a lower court remedy for common law “misappropriation” of news stories that the parties conceded could not be protected under federal copyright law.
- Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work. As we stated in
- was about the patentability of computer programs as “processes,” not about the patentability of living subject matter as “manufactures” or “compositions of matter.” Nor did the Court’s review of “hornbook law” concerning the nonpatentability of “principles, laws of nature, mental processes, intellectual concepts, ideas, natural phenomena, mathematical formulae, methods of calculation, fundamental truths, original causes, motives, the Pythagorean theorem, and … computer-implementable method claims …” have any application to the
- Open Chapter
The Story of Diamond v. Diehr: Toward Patenting Software (Patents) 13 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In balancing the costs and benefits of granting exclusive rights, intellectual property systems and those who create them inevitably face the question of how to define the subject matter eligible for protection. Patent law, which grants broad exclusive rights to inventors, has historically not considered basic truths patentable subject matter. Granting one person exclusive rights in fundamental truths imposes large costs on society by imposing a “tax” on all (likely many) who seek to use that truth. On the other hand, granting exclusive rights in an application of a basic truth in a particular context likely costs much less, and may even be necessary to induce innovation. But how do a general purpose statute and the administrative agency and courts interpreting it strike the appropriate balance?
- Software also challenged the intellectual property system for another reason. Although certain items might qualify for protection under
- Finding a Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property, and the Challenge of Technological Change, OTA–TCT–527 at 66
- in a way that favors including software itself as patentable subject matter. The practical effect of the decision as interpreted, then, has had a major impact on intellectual property protection in the computer industry.
- in a way that favored patenting software. Thus did a case about curing rubber become known as the case that shaped intellectual property protection in an entire, almost unrelated industry!
- Open Chapter
2. Creativity and Inventiveness 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For one thing, reliance on the preamble of the intellectual property clause to limit Congressional copyright power quickly and essentially dried up. Although courts routinely treated the preamble as bearing substantively on the extent of Congress’s copyright powers prior to
- But the analogy between free speech and copyright actually does not work as neatly as it first seems. The First Amendment prohibits government from disfavoring speech because it disapproves of its content. In creating or affirming the existence of intellectual property rights, legislators and courts are, first of all, acting to promote rather than deter works of authorship, and, second, are conferring those rights to further certain some specific set of social goals. Complete even-handedness in furthering speech activities is not required even by the First Amendment,
- The Story of
- and its implications for another line of cases, see Pamela Samuelson, The Story of
- Mr. Bleistein Denies It: A Baseless Story about a Conversation with Mr. Whitney
- Open Chapter
- The Story of
- case, begins his book with the story of an ad that Sony’s ad agency conceived and sent to Universal Studios for its approval. “Now you don’t have to miss Kojak because you’re watching Columbo (or vice versa).”
- Other legislators weighed in with variant bills, and on April 12, 1982, the House Committee on the Judiciary held a special hearing in Los Angeles to consider the six different bills before it. The motion picture industry’s chief lobbyist, Jack Valenti, was the first witness. He appeared armed with a 49 page legal memorandum authored by Harvard law professor Larry Tribe, which argued that any law that exempted home videotaping from liability for copyright infringement would be an unconstitutional taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- Stephen Kroft stood up to argue for the studios. “Underneath all the legal arguments and legal labels that we’ve thrown around in this case, the case is really very simple and straightforward,” he began. “Petitioners have created a billion dollar industry based entirely on the taking of someone else’s property….”
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 5th, 2005
- ISBN: 9781587787270
- Subject: Intellectual Property
- Series: Law Stories
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This book brings famous cases to life by telling the true, never-heard-before stories behind landmark Intellectual Property cases. It is organized into six chapters, each drawing on cases in patents, copyrights, trademarks, or unfair competition, to illustrate the problems encountered in intellectual property law. The works, inventions, and marks at issue in these cases vary widely.