For years the music industry commanded a virtual stranglehold on the dissemination of music to the consumer. The median which gave birth to the record industry, the gramophone record, was relatively difficult and expensive to duplicate. That stranglehold began to loosen as many consumer products that could record or copy audio recordings were introduced into the market. Following the landmark decision in the “Betamax case” the music industry became quite concerned about home recording undercutting their profits. The introduction of digital recording fueled these fears because digital copies, unlike their analog counterparts, do not from degradation. Eventually the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) was passed to address these fears and control this dissemination, while still protecting the privileges afforded under the “Betamax case.” However, recent technological advances have led the development of home recording methods beyond the Court decided scope of the AHRA. Coupled with the rise of the Internet these new methods represent a drastic change which creates a more hostile environment to consumers and the music industry alike. It is posited here that the scope of the AHRA should be reexamined in order to protect the competing interests of the music industry and the consumer alike. [More]

A discussion about intellectual property rights being the last remaining barrier to international free trade. Intellectual patent rights in Eastern and Western worlds are discussed and analyzed as a possible problem to why intellectual property rights are still such a big issue. Lastly, a solution is offered to overcome these differences. [More]

I. Introduction

Gucci, Fendi, Prada, Coach; Designers most individuals know, but few can afford. Yet, despite their high prices, countless individuals sport these designer labels on a daily basis. Chances are however, the majority of these ‘designer duds’, including sunglasses, handbags, electronics, and even drugs, are not authentic. Over the past few years, this knockoff fetish has become increasingly popular throughout the world, especially with the recent economic downfall. With a high demand for these items and popular acceptance of this act, few consumers consider the illegality and danger of owning and supporting these unlawful products. [More]

I. Introduction

Patents have recently received a great deal of attention as tradable commodities, attracting the attention of several hedge funds, and giving rise to investment firms that specialize in patent acquisition.[1][2] This aspect is not unanticipated, and in fact is on its face congruent with the original means for attaining the goals behind patent law – “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.” [3] The idea behind providing this protection is simple: encourage innovation by giving the innovator certain property rights and protections under the law which in turn encourages market participation.[4] The ability to monetize innovation is the means by which the U.S. Constitution proposed to incentivize the research and distribution of innovations. Nowhere else has this been more relevant than in the “Technology Sector,” where patents can make or break market share, and mean big bucks for the holders of those patents.[5] With the increasing number of patents issued and the amount of money tied up in them, the amount of litigation regarding those patents has increased accordingly[6]. This paper will address some of the issues created by the right to in IP litigation. [More]

On August 31st, 2009, it was announced that the Walt Disney Company would acquire Marvel Entertainment. Marvel and Disney’s primary assets are intellectual properties, especially in the form of fictional characters. Questions arise as to how these character properties can be analyzed by the antitrust authorities, particularly in order to identify markets and competition given both the similarities and significant differences between Disney and Marvel’s properties. This article will consider whether the Horizontal and Vertical Merger Guidelines as currently drafted properly provide for a merger of this type and identify those provisions that do not appear flexible enough for a full consideration of the issues involved. [More]

I. Introduction

On September 8, 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed copyright infringement lawsuits against 261 individuals for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.[1] In the five years since, the RIAA has sued, settled, or threatened litigation against over 30,000 Americans for alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[2] These actions have attracted a great deal of public attention, largely due to the fact that the suits have hit very close to home for many Americans. Unlike prior lawsuits, which targeted software programs such as Napster and Grokster, this new chapter in the file-sharing saga has focused on ordinary people.[3] The targets of the RIAA’s legal claims run the spectrum of everyday people who are not typically the subjects of copyright actions, including children, parents, grandparents, single mothers, professors, and college students.[4]

The RIAA’s strategic offensive against music consumers has spurred a firestorm of debate concerning topics such as copyright law, technology, privacy, and legal procedure. For the first few years of the RIAA’s legal efforts, the focus of legal and social observers centered on the RIAA’s tactics for identifying and filing suit against potential defendants.[5] In the last year, however, as contested cases have made their way through district court litigation, the focus has shifted to the interpretation of black-letter copyright law. The RIAA’s “making available” theory of infringement has garnered a great deal of attention, though its acceptance by district courts has been inconsistent. To date, the few district courts to rule on the matter have each interpreted the Copyright Act differently in the context of file-sharing, indicating that there is likely to be ongoing uncertainty until appellate level courts offer clarification. For the moment, though the trend is moving away from acceptance of the "making available" theory, courts appear more willing to allow the RIAA to prevail on the basis of actual dissemination. [More]

I. Introduction

With the 2008 presidential campaign expected to break spending records, it is no surprise that both major political parties are flooding swing-state airwaves with television advertisements. While recent elections have produced the much-discussed "swift boat" and "3 a.m." commercials, the McCain campaign took a unique approach with the summer release of the so-called Barack Obama "celebrity" ad.[1] In response to the enthusiasm generated by large U.S. and European crowds at Obama's public appearances, the McCain campaign featured images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an ad that characterized Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world."[2] Such unauthorized use of celebrity images in political advertisements has been the subject of recent debate, as any potential legal actions implicate the tension between the right of publicity and the First Amendment. [More]

I. Introduction In response to increasing market pressure on their core business, Seagate Technologies is asserting a handful of its patents against manufacturers of flash memory-based solid state drives (SSDs) products. Seagate Technology is currently the world’s largest manufacturer of hard-disk drives (HDDs), but lags behind several competitors in the SSD market. [1] On Monday, April 14th, Seagate Technology filed a patent infringement lawsuit against STEC. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges infringement of four Seagate patents. [2] Industry commentators believe that Seagate’s lawsuit is a result of increasing market pressure on their core business, which competes directly with that of STEC. By filing an infringement lawsuit now, Seagate opens several options for itself in the face of a potential collapse in sales for its major products. [More]

I. Introduction Robust protection for intellectual property is one of the chief engines for economic growth in the United States. Patents, copyright and trademark laws provide vigorous, reliable protection for US intellectual property, which is valued at more than $5 trillion by the Commerce Department. [1] With regards to patents, most commentators and interested parties agree that at least some type of modification or reform is necessary. [More]

Introduction:

Most consumers agree that intellectual property law is essential to ensure that creators of inventions, ideas, designs, services and the like are rewarded for their creativity and to promote the continuation of such creations.[1] In order to grant creators with the incentive to continue creating, such creators must be equipped with the satisfaction of knowing that their creations will not be transformed into cheap imitations which will inevitably compete with their own original creations. Intellectual property is a field in which only the most innovative thrive. While imitation is often considered the most sincere form of flattery, it is doubtful that inventors will continue to introduce the same number of creations at exponentially high rates, knowing that their unique innovations may be reintroduced into the same market to compete with their original goods within a short period of time. The protection of intellectual property is at the forefront of agreements between nation-states because of the relative ease of copying, and the lax attitude of some nation-states to prevent and punish infringement.[2] A prevailing argument is the thesis that "technology drives investment" and to the extent that technology is reluctant to flow where it is not protected, the lack of an adequate level of protection could stunt technological transfer and foreign investment entirely.[3] [More]