For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or so states Newton’s third law of motion. It is safe to say that Newton never met an intellectual property lawyer, and he never had to deal with the whims and fancy of an arbitrary and capricious Supreme Court. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Google v. Oracle, in which the Court ruled that Google’s intentional copying of 11,500 lines of computer code from Oracle was a fair use despite the fact that Google made many tens of billions of dollars in the process, and despite the fact that the record showed that Google consciously chose to copy, rather than independently create, because programmers were already familiar with the 11,500 lines of code they wanted to take.
Recent Posts
- Mixed UK High Court Ruling Fails to Answer Fundamental Questions of AI Copyright Infringement
- Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works
- Squires Emphasizes AI, Dubs Inherited Backlog ‘An Absolute Dumpster Fire’ and a ‘Betrayal’
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Precedent on Pre-AIA Prior Art ‘By Another’
- Squires Restores PTAB’s RPI Identification Requirement to Exacting Pre-SharkNinja Standard
