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
- Copyright Office Makes AI Authorship Policy Official
- Copyright Claims Board Finds for Photographer on Infringement But Curbs Damages in First Final Decision
- Recognizing AI-Assisted Art: The Copyright Office is Using the Wrong Legal Standard
- We Need a Copyright Reboot for Robots
- StarrAI Night: AI Art and the Necessary Changes in the Copyright Law
Recent Posts
- What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
- A Dog’s Day in Court: Implications of the ‘Bad Spaniels’ Arguments on Parody Determinations and Noncommercial Use
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 24: Non-DOCX Fee Delayed Further; SCOTUS Petition Says Hirshfeld’s Review of PTAB Decision Violated Federal Vacancies Reform Act; Moderna CEO Grilled by Senate Committee over COVID Vaccine Price Hike
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers