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.
Copyright
- Computer Law
- Fair Use
- First Sale Doctrine
- Win for Photographer in Ninth Circuit Reversal of Fair Use Finding
- Entrepreneur Spotlight: How Ray Young is Fighting Content Theft Encouraged by Big Tech Platforms
- Testing the Bounds of Copyright Protection in Choreographic Works: Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc.
- IP Issues for Retail Businesses Advertising in Augmented Reality
- Intellectual Property Risks in the Metaverse: Protection, Jurisdiction and Enforcement
Recent Posts
- Certification Marks: The Tie that Binds Scotch Whisky, the International Ladies Garment Worker’s Union and a Rated R Motion Picture
- Win for Photographer in Ninth Circuit Reversal of Fair Use Finding
- Entrepreneur Spotlight: How Ray Young is Fighting Content Theft Encouraged by Big Tech Platforms
- Studebaker & Brackett is Hiring a Patent Attorney or Agent
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 5: Win for AbbVie at Seventh Circuit; Eleventh Circuit Affirms Ruling for Monster Energy; and Ninth Circuit Reverses Fair Use Finding in Death Valley Lake Photo Case