SCOTUSCase Litigants SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. ArgueDate January 18 ArgueYear 1983 ReargueDate October 3 ReargueYear 1983 DecideDate January 17 DecideYear 1984 FullName Sony Corporation of America et al. v. UniversalCityStudios, Inc., et al. USVol 464 USPage 417 Citation ... Act of 1976 SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. , case citation 464 U.S. 417 ... 464 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. References Reflist Further reading cite journal last Feder first Jesse M. authorlink coauthors year 2003 month title Is Betamax Obsolete SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. in the Age of Napster journal Creighton Law Review volume 37 issue ... 461 id url http ssrn.com abstract 965720 accessdate quote External links Wikisource inline SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. http www.law.cornell.edu copyright cases 464 US 417.htm SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 1984 opinion full text . http www.oyez.org oyez resource case 768 Oyez summary DEFAULTSORT SonyCorp. Of AmericaV. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States copyright case law Category UniversalStudios Category Sony Category 1984 in United States case law Category Fair use ... of the case In the 1970s, Sony developed Betamax , a video tape recording format VHS would later overtake Betamax . UniversalStudios and the Walt Disney Company were among the film industry members ... v. Universal The Intellectual Property Legacy Of Justice Stevens journal Fordham Law Review year ... lawsuits for example, in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Case citation 239 F.3d 9th Cir. 2001 ... the potentially infringing activities of its users. In August 2004, in the case of MGM Studios, Inc ... protections for the film industry. The companies therefore opted to sue Sony and its distributors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1976, alleging that because Sony ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Universalv. Nintendo court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image USDCSDNY.jpg date decided 1984 full name UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Nintendo ... UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet . In their complaint, UniversalStudios alleged that Nintendo s video game Donkey Kong arcade game Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong , the plot and characters of which Universal claimed for their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proved that King Kong s plot and characters were in the public domain in UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in bad ... ape. ref Sheff 124. ref UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd. was heard at the United ... 04 25 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit October 4, 1984 . UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit July 15, 1986 . UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. cite web title Universal Goes Ape month June year 2003 url http ... Category UniversalStudios Category 1982 in United States case law good article es Caso UniversalCityStudios contra Nintendo pt Caso UniversalCityStudios, Inc. contra Nintendo Co., Ltd. ... and UniversalStudiosUniversalCityStudios and a seasoned attorney, was trying to find a way to get ... characters and that they had in fact successfully sued RKO Pictures in 1975 in UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. RKO General Inc., et al. , wherein they proved that the plot of King Kong was in the public ... issues issue 119 2539 The King and the Donkey The King and the Donkey DEFAULTSORT UniversalCityStudios, Inc. V. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Category Video game law Category Donkey Kong Category History of video ... s game and characters with the King Kong films and their characters. Universal appeal ed the case ... more details
orphan date November 2009 Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. , Case citation 426 F.3d 1001 8th Cir. 2005 , is a trademark case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the name of one of the largest ice cream truck franchise companies in the United States was neither distinctive nor famous enough to receive protection against being used in a violent video game. Background Frosty Treats, Inc. is the name of one of the largest ice cream truck street vendors in the United States. Their trucks uniformly feature a Frosty Treats logo, typically surrounded by the logos of various frozen snacks sold by the vender. Another feature of the trucks is the Safety Clown , an image of a clown pointing children towards the back of the vehicle. In the mid 1990s, Sony released Twisted Metal 2 , a video game that allows players to wreak havoc on simulated streets with a variety of vehicles including an ice cream truck prominently featuring a logo that says Frosty Treats . The video game ice cream truck is driven by a crazed clown known as Sweet Tooth Twisted Metal Sweet Tooth , one of many featured in the game. Lawsuit Frosty Treats, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Sony contending that the game infringed on the company s trademarks through the use of the phrase, Frosty Treats , as well as similarities between the video game clown and the company s own safety clown. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Sony and dismissed the case, holding that the name could not be protected because it was generic. U.S. District Judge Scott Wright stated in his May 19, 2005 dismissal that the various depictions of the Sweet Tooth character in defendant s Twisted Metal series Twisted Metal games and plaintiff s Safety Clown are so dissimilar that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that they are confusingly ... City Business Journal, July 23, 2004, retrieved June 26, 2006 Category United States Court of Appeals ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB ArgueDateA November 6 ArgueDateB 7 ArgueYear 1950 DecideDate February 26 DecideYear 1951 FullName Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board USVol 340 USPage 474 Citation Prior Universal Camera Corp. , 79 N.L.R.B. 379, 22 L.R.R.M. BNA 1948 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 179 F.2d 749 2nd Cir. 1950 enforcing order Subsequent Holding A court will defer to a federal agency s findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. OralArgument SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Frankfurter JoinMajority Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Burton, Clark, Minton Concurrence Dissent Black, Douglas JoinConcurrence Dissent LawsApplied Administrative Procedures Act Taft Hartley Act wikisource Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , Case citation 340 U.S. 474 1951 , was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case which held that a court ... links caselaw source case Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 340 U.S. 474 1951 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... us 340 474 case.html US Administrative law DEFAULTSORT Universal Camera Corp. V. Nlrb Category 1951 .... Background Universal Camera Corp. fired an employee who testified under the National Labor Relations Act . The National Labor Relations Board ordered Universal Camera Corp. to reinstate the employee ... if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Universal Camera added an additional qualification to the substantial evidence test laid down in Consolidated Edison Co. v ... Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split . ref Universal Camera , 340 U.S. at 477 ... discussed the substantial evidence test established by the Court in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB ... mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ref Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB .... ref Universal Camera , 340 U.S. at 487. ref The Court found that both the Administrative Procedure ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. court United States District ... Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the United States District Court for the Northern ... Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. The court held that, in violation of the DMCA, Universal had not in good faith considered fair use when filing a takedown notice. ref name case http www.eff.org files filenode lenz vuniversal lenzorder082008.pdf Lenz v. Universal Music Corp , 572 ... cases lenz vuniversal Electronic Frontier Foundation s resources related to Lenz v. Universal http www.citmedialaw.org threats universal music v lenz Citizen Media Law Project s resources related to Lenz v. Universal DEFAULTSORT Lenz V. Universal Music Corp. Category Digital Millennium Copyright ... s song Let s Go Crazy . ref name youtubeclip http www.youtube.com watch?v N1KfJHFWlhQ Let s Go Crazy YouTube video ref Universal Music Group Universal Music Corporation Universal sent YouTube a takedown ..., and the song audible for approximately twenty seconds. ref name case In June 2007, Universal ... the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration ... 17 U.S.C. 512 , see f . ref According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. 512 c 3 A v , the copyright holder must ... 00000512 000 .html 17 U.S.C. 512 , see c 3 A v . ref In September 2007, Prince released statements ..., eBay over music use Sep. 13, 2007 . ref In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle. ref name case Decision Based on Prince s and Universal s statements, Lenz argued that Universal was issuing takedown notices in bad faith, as they attempted to remove all Prince related content rather than considering the merits of each work. Universal expressed ... issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the court denied Universal s motion to dismiss Lenz s claims ... more details
Unreferenced date October 2006 Infobox Court Case name Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. court Supreme Court of Delaware image DelawareSupremeCourtSeal.gif imagesize imagelink imagealt caption full name Unitrin, Inc., James E. Annable, Reuben L. Hedlund, Jerrold V. Jerome, George A. Roberts, Fayez S. Sarofim, Henry E. Singleton and Richard C. Vie v. American General Corp. In re Unitrin, Inc. Shareholders Litigation date decided January 11, 1995 citations Case citation 651 A.2d 1361 Del. 1995 transcripts judges Daniel L. Herrmann , John J. McNeilly, Jr. , Henry R. Horsey , Andrew G.T. Moore II , & Andrew D. Christie prior actions subsequent actions opinions keywords Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. , Del. Supr., 651 A.2d 1361 1995 is the leading case on a board of directors ability to use defensive measures, such as poison pill s or Share repurchase buybacks , to prevent a Takeover hostile takeover . The case demonstrates an approach to corporate governance that favors the primacy of the board of directors over the will of the shareholders. Facts American General Corp tendered an offer for a controlling block of shares of Unitrin. The Board of Directors of Unitrin, who held 23 of the shares, did not think the price offered was adequate and so initiated a poison pill and offered a buyback to increase their holdings to 28 of the total shares. The trial court found that the offer represented a threat of substantial coercion , and based on the Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum test, the poison pill was reasonable but the repurchase was not. The issue before the Supreme Court of Delaware was whether the repurchasing was a reasonable reaction to American General s threat. Judgment The Delaware Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in applying the Unocal standard. The court ... also wikisource Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum , 493 A.2d 946 Del. 1985 DEFAULTSORT Unitrin, Inc. V. American General Corp. Category United States corporation case law Category Delaware state case law Category ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit image US CourtOfAppeals 9thCircuit Seal.svg date decided October 2, 1995 full name Microsoft Corporation v. Dak Industries Incorporated citations 66 Federal Reporter Federal Reporter, Third Series F.3d 1091 judges w William A. Fletcher William A. Fletcher , w Melvin T. Brunetti Melvin T. Brunetti , and w Thomas G. Nelson Thomas G. Nelson prior actions 27 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 118 Denied Microsoft s administrative expense claim subsequent actions opinions Buying a lump sum of software was found to be equivalent to buying a lump sum of physical goods when considering the economic realities of the deal, even if it was sold under a license providing a permission to use the intellectual property. Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. 66 Federal Reporter Federal Reporter, Third Series F.3d ... microsoft v dak Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. , http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c F3 66 ... to use was also adopted SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. When a consumer purchased ... v adobe SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. , http scholar.google.com scholar case?case .... 2001 . ref In Universal Music Group v. Augusto , the court also looked at the economic realities ... CDs under the First Sale Doctrine. ref name umg v augusto UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto , http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 11228310481413205056&q UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto&hl ... States v. Wise Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. References reflist 2 External Links Carver, Brian W., Why License .... ref name microsoft v dak Microsoft alleged that it was entitled to administrative expenses from ... distribution of its software. ref name microsoft v dak District Court and Bankruptcy Court opinion ... appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . ref name microsoft v dak Opinion ... courts and denied Microsoft s claim. ref name microsoft v dak Subsequent developments Other cases The idea ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc Court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 2ndCircuit Seal.png 180px ArgueDate April 3 ArgueYear 2008 DecideDate April 3 DecideYear 2009 FullName Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. Citations http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 5425188118461692354 562 F.3d 123 Prior Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. , No. 5 ... usc 15 1125 a , uscsub2 15 1125 a , USCSec 15 1114 , USCSec 15 1127 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc ... court litigants Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc vol 456 reporter F.Supp.2d opinion 393 date 2006 court ... cite court litigants Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc vol 562 reporter F.3.d opinion 123 date 2009 ... by Google. The Second Circuit s holding in 1 800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. 1 800 CONTACTS, INC. v. WhenU. com, Inc. ref name 1 800 Contacts cite court litigants 1 800 CONTACTS, INC. v. WhenU.com Inc. vol 414 reporter F.3d opinion 400 date 2005 court United States Court of Appeals for the Second ... courts outside the Second Circuit , as well as 1 800 Contacts Pop up ad lawsuit 1 800 CONTACTS, INC. v. WhenU. com, Inc. , a case heard by the Second Circuit appeals court. Both the district and appeals ... Mich cite court litigants Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc. vol 293 reporter F.Supp.2d opinion ... ref name WhenU UHaul cite court litigants U Haul International, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. vol 279 reporter ... function . ref The Second Circuit in 1 800 Contacts v. WhenU.com Inc. upheld the above line of reasoning ... articles trademark second circuit reverses in rescuecom v google adwords use of trademark is a use in commerce under the lanham act title Second Circuit Reverses Rescuecom v Google publisher Proskauer.com ... Rescuecom v. Google author Eric Goldman date 3 April 2009 accessdate 21 October 2010 ref ref name ... Appellee author Google Inc. date 12 February 2007 accessdate 21 October 2010 ref was rejected by the court ... Trademark Trademark infringement Lanham Act Law Google Inc. corporate yes products yes Category United ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. full case name Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. heard date December 14, 1999 decided date December 15, 2000 citations 2000 2 S.C.R. 1067 2000 SCC 67 docket 27208 ruling Appeal dismissed. SCC 1999 2000 Unanimous per Binnie J. NotParticipating Whirlpool Corp. v. Camco Inc. , 2000 2 S.C.R. 1067 2000 SCC 67, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on patent s, namely claim patent claim claim construction Interpretation or claim construction construction and double patenting, whether a patent should be invalid because an invention was patented twice. The court adopted purposive construction as the means to construe patent claims. This judgement is to be read along with the related decision, Free World Trust v. lectro Sant Inc. , 2000 2 S.C.R. 1066, 2000 SCC 66. There the Court articulated the scope of protection provided by patents. Background Background of law In Canada the patent system prohibits two patents for the same invention. This is called double patenting. One type of double patenting is to compare the claims of the patents. Are they identical or conterminous? This is sometimes called same invention double patenting. There is a second type ofdouble patenting is sometimes called obviousness double patenting. Prior to this case it was unclear how to handle obviousness double patenting. Background of facts In the 1970s Whirlpool developed an inventive dual action agitator for clothes washing machines that utilized the bottom portion of the shaft for the usual oscillating motion back and forth but added an upper sleeve that was designed to work as a auger . The auger propelled water and clothing downwards onto the oscillating vanes of the lower agitator to produce more uniform scrubbing. This development work resulted in three Canadian patents. In the first patent 1,045,401 the dual agitator was powered by a drive shaft that was not at issue. A http patents.ic.gc.ca cipo cpd en patent 1049803 summary.html CIPO ... more details
35 101 AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc. , Case citation 172 F.3d 1352 1999 ref name Fedcircuit AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., http www.ll.georgetown.edu federal judicial fed ... of Delaware concluded ref name district court AT & T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., No. CIV.A.96 ...Infobox COA case Litigants AT&T CORP. & EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals FederalCircuit Seal.svg 180px ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate April 14 DecideYear 1999 FullName AT&T CORPORATION , Plaintiff Appellee, v. EXCEL COMMUNICATIONS MARKETING, INC., Defendant Appellant Citations 172 F.3d 1352 Prior 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447 United States District Court for the District of Delaware D. Dela. 1998 finding U.S. Patent No. 5,333,184 invalid for lack of statutory subject matter Subsequent Holding The claims are eligible for protection by a patent in the United States if it involved some practical application and it produces ... Com mu ni ca tions, Inc. and decided that AT&T Corp. had failed to claim statutory subject matter ... the case for further proceedings. Along with State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group ref name ... 2010 Background The Two Sides AT&T Corp. , originally the en American Telephone & Telegraph Company ... agencies. This company is a subsidiary of AT&T AT&T Inc. and its subsidiary AT&T Communications ... Court s opinion in Diamond v. Diehr , ref name Diehr Diehr, http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts ... Bank v. Signature Financial Group ref name StateStreet State Street Bank v. Signature Financial , http ... result&resnum 3&ved 0CBkQ6AEwAjgK v onepage&q Excel 20Communications 20at 26t 20patent&f false ... cases that fell into this controversial situation after AT&T v. Excel. In this particular case, the Federal ... Inc. Homepage http www.fundinguniverse.com company histories EXCEL Communications Inc Company History.html EXCEL Communications Inc. History External links Steve White, http www.computerlaw.com.au dokuwiki ... more details
Unreferenced date December 2007 Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc. , 1954 Ex. CR 382, 20 CPR 75 is a Canadian copyright law decision by the Exchequer Court a predecessor of the Federal Court of Canada . The Court held that rebroadcasting of public performances by cable companies did not violate any communication rights or public performance rights. There cannot be copyright in Broadcasting telecast ing live events because there is insufficient fixation . The result of the case became a major factor in the following growth of the Canadian cable television industry. Background A Canadian football football game was broadcast live from the stadium by a set of three cameras directed by a producer in a van just outside the venue. The game was not recorded in any format and was broadcast live to viewers. Canadian Admiral has purchased the rights to the live feed from the game. Rediffusion, a cable company, captured the transmission of the broadcast and sold it to private homes and public show rooms. Canadian Admiral sued for copyright infringement. The issue was whether Canadian Admiral owned any copyright in the football game. Opinion of the Court The Court held that there was no copyright in the rebroadcast of a live game. As a general rule there can be no copyright in a sports event. The games are not pre planned and not predictable. Moreover, the live direction by the producer was an insufficient amount of planning to create any fixation. Camron J. held that f or copyright to subsist in a work, it must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance. See also List of notable Canadian lower court cases Category Canadian copyright case law Category 1954 in case law Category 1954 in Canada ... more details
scholar case?case 1916797329375920003 UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Reimerdes Law Category ...Infobox United States District Court Case name 321 Studiosv. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. court ... 321 Studios, Plaintiffs, br v. br Metro Goldwyn Mayer StudiosInc., Defendants. br date decided ... Copyright Act DMCA 321 Studiosv Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. , 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 N.D. ... use. The court rejected this conclusion using reasoning from the UniversalStudiosv. Corley case ... Studiosv. Corley, arguing the basic flaw in this argument is that it misreads subsection 1201 a 3 A . ref name corley http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 5930508913825375010 UniversalCityStudios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 2nd Cir.2001 ref That provision exempts from liability those who .... 321 Studios was enjoined from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking in any ... District of California ref is a district court case brought by 321 Studios seeking declaratory ... District of California rejected 321 Studios claims for declaratory relief, holding that both DVD Copy ..., the court granted an injunction to enjoin 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software. Background Plaintiff 321 Studios was a private ... of members of the Motion Picture Association of America MPAA . As a result of the claim of unconstitutionality ... the Copyright violation issue, but directly rejected 321 Studios s claims and granted the injunction ... Studios was liable under sections 1201 a 2 and 1201 b 1 of the DMCA. Section 1201 a 2 of the DMCA ..., as construed by members of the MPAA, is unconstitutionally void. 321 Studios argued that the DMCA is invalid, because 1 the DMCA in this context restricted 321 Studios free speech protected .... The court enjoined 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking in any ... found that, because 321 Studios DVD copying software circumvented CSS, a technological protection ... more details
in 2003 , citing the SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. Betamax decision . Then a higher .... The majority of the Justices would have either expanded or contracted the SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. Sony Betamax doctrine , however the Court as a whole has not chosen to reexamine the SonyCorp. of Americav. UniversalCityStudios, Inc. Betamax precedent in the decision ... entertainment companies led by Metro Goldwyn Mayer studios . Prior history The case is frequently characterized as a re examination of the issues in SonyCorp. v. UniversalCityStudios , Case citation ...SCOTUSCase Litigants MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ArgueDate March 29 ArgueYear 2005 DecideDate June 27 DecideYear 2005 FullName Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al .... 686 2004 Subsequent Remanded by MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17145 9th ... United States Copyright Act of 1976 Copyright Act of 1976 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd ... Mgm Studios, Inc. V. Grokster, Ltd. Category United States copyright case law Category United States ... 2006 07 20 publisher Grokster ref As part of a lawsuit permitted by the MGM Studiosv. Grokster .... In Sony, the court held that technology could not be barred if it was capable of substantial ... the Recording Industry Association of America RIAA and Motion Picture Association of America MPAA ... mgm copyright.gov and http www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster eff.org . Billionaire Mark Cuban partially ... disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony case, and whether the precedent established by Sony should be modified. On one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that t his case differs markedly from Sony based on insufficient evidence ... demonstrated need for modifying Sony or for interpreting Sony s standard more strictly has not yet ... to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony . These justices ... more details
contract. In 1964 MCA formed UniversalCityStudios, Inc . to take over the motion pictures ... to international instead of U.S. terminology Universal Pictures sometimes called UniversalCityStudios or UniversalStudios for short , a subsidiary of NBCUniversal , is one of the six major movie ... media super conglomerate was renamed NBC Universal, while UniversalStudiosInc. remained .... Its production studios are at 100 UniversalCity Plaza Drive in UniversalCity, California . Distribution and other corporate offices are in New York City. Universal Pictures is the second longest ... s largest motion picture production facility, UniversalCityStudios, on a 230 acre 0.9 km converted .... Around this time, the production subsidiary was renamed UniversalStudiosInc. Matsushita provided ... was renamed NBC Universal , while UniversalStudiosInc. remained the name of the production subsidiary ...For the theme parks Universal Parks & Resorts Infobox company name Universal Pictures Company, Inc. logo File Universal logo.jpg 250px br The current UniversalStudios logo type Subsidiary of NBCUniversal ... UniversalCity, California , United States U.S. br Florida location city modifies Headquarters entry ... effectively launched Walt Disney Studios foothold, while Universal became a minor player ... light musicals with young sopranos for Universal s German subsidiary, came to America and repeated ... role after leaving Paramount Studios. Universal could seldom afford its own stable of stars, and often ... of Universal Pictures Company Inc. Goetz set out an ambitious schedule. Universal International ... The Killers , and The Naked City , Universal International s new theatrical films often met with disappointing ... they chose, and in 1950 Music Corporation of America MCA agent Lew Wasserman made a deal with Universal ... would become the rule for many future productions at Universal, and eventually at other studios as well ... forever. The MCA Inc. Music Corporation of America better known as MCA , mainly a talent agency ... more details
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services Inc. , 551 U.S. 224 2007 , was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States about federal court jurisdiction and foreign sovereigns. External links http www.law.cornell.edu supct html 05 85.ZS.html Text of the decision Category 2007 in law Law stub ... more details
to Exit. ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc. , 831 F.Supp. 202 D.Mass.1993 ref Borland ... is an uncopyrightable method of operation. ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc. , 49 ... 1 2 3. ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc. , 49 F.3d 807, 817 1st Cir. 1995 ref The court also ... different program, which places an undue burden on users. ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc ... in others. ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc. , 49 F.3d 807, 819 21 1st Cir ... tie vote, with Justice Stevens recusal recusing . ref Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc. , 516 ... 2214.html Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 1st Cir. 1995 http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c US 516 516.US.233.html Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 1996 http www.gesmer.com publications article.php?ID 103 Perspective Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, April 1995 DEFAULTSORT Lotus Dev. Corp. V. Borland Int l, Inc ...Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. ArgueDate January 8 ArgueYear 1996 DecideDate January 16 DecideYear 1996 FullName Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. USVol 516 USPage 233 Citation 49 F.3d 807 1st Cir. 1995 , aff d, 516 U.S. 233, 116 S. Ct. 804 133 L. Ed. 2d 610 1996 . Prior Lotus claimed copyright infringement by Borland s Quattro Pro product. The district court ruled for Lotus, but this decision was reversed on appeal, finding that the allegedly infringing features of Quattro Pro were a method of operation not subject to copyright. Lotus petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted however, because of a split opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed. Subsequent Holding The appeals court s decision was affirmed. SCOTUS 1994 2005 PerCuriam yes NotParticipating Stevens LawsApplied 17 U.S.C. section 102 b Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. , Case citation 516 ... more details
about the United States Supreme Court case the current, ongoing lawsuit AMD v. Intel SCOTUSCase Litigants Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ArgueDate April 20 ArgueYear 2004 DecideDate June 21 DecideYear 2004 FullName Intel Corporation, Petitioner v. Advanced Micro Devices, Incorporated USVol 542 USPage 241 Citation 124 S. Ct. 2466 159 L. Ed. 2d 355 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4570 72 U.S.L.W. 4528 71 U.S.P.Q.2D BNA 1001 2004 1 Trade Cas. CCH P74,453 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. Callaghan 742 58 Fed. R. Serv. 3d Callaghan 696 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 399 Prior On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. , 292 F.3d 664, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 10759 9th Cir. Cal., 2002 Subsequent Application denied by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. , 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21437 N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2004 Holding The Court decided that Section 1782 authorizes, but does not require, the District Court to provide discovery aid to AMD. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Ginsburg JoinMajority Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas Concurrence Scalia Dissent Breyer NotParticipating O Connor LawsApplied UnitedStatesCode 28 1782 Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. , ussc 542 241 2004 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving UnitedStatesCode 28 1782 , which authorizes United States district court s to enforce discovery law discovery requests made in connection with litigation being conducted in foreign tribunals. Prior to Intel , there had been substantial disagreement as to the availability of Section 1782 Discovery . The Intel case originated from Advanced Micro Devices s antitrust claims against Intel in Europe. AMD filed a complaint against Intel in the European Union s antitrust enforcement agency the Directorate General for Competition , and then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. for discovery ... archives 000782.php An article on Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices http www.intlawnet.com ... more details
by Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. in the Ninth Circuit ...primary sources date January 2011 Infobox Court Case name Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date argued and decided September 11, 2001 full name Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation v. Excite, Inc. citations 354 F.3d 1020 judges Betty B. Fletcher , Thomas G. Nelson and Marsha S. Berzon Playboy v. Netscape , 354 F.3d 1020 9th Cir. 2001 was a case regarding trademark infringement and trademark dilution decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . Playboy Playboy Enterprises Inc. took legal action against Netscape Communications Corp. and Excite Excite, Inc. , accusing them of infringement and dilution of Playboy s marks playboy and playmate ref http www.internetlibrary.com cases lib case336.cfm ref ref http openjurist.org 354 f3d 1020 playboy enterprises incv netscape communications corporation ref . Facts Netscape allows advertisers to Targeted advertising target specific users of its search engine by displaying certain ads to certain people, depending on what the user searches for. The display and profiting of ads by a search engine operators such as Netscape is referred to as keying. This keying technique is considered more effective than random ads. Netscape uses this technique for adult entertainment and has a list of terms for which to display related ads. This list contains the terms playboy and playmate which are trademarked by Playboy ... Enterprises, Inc. This action is legally considered trademark infringement under the initial interest ... allowed Playboy Enterprises, Inc. to proceed with their claims of trademark infringement and dilution ..., Inc. Despite the customer s later knowledge that the products they are purchasing are in fact ... Court to the District Court, who was given instruction to apply the case of Mosley v. V Secret ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc. court United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York image imagesize caption full name Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc. date decided Feb. 7, 1994 citations 846 F. Supp. 208, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1135, Copy. L. Rep. CCH P27,257 transcripts judge Raymond J. Dearie prior actions subsequent actions holding Defendant s selling of copyrighted Microsoft products, without license or authorization, constituted copyright infringement , was not protected by the first sale doctrine , and its distribution of the plaintiff s products in a stand alone fashion violated the Microsoft License Agreement. keywords Copyright , First sale doctrine , Software license Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc. was an United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Eastern New York District Court decision regarding copyright infringement and breach of license agreement. Microsoft Corp. referred to as Microsoft below filed the lawsuit against Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc. referred to as Harmony below and its president, Stanley Furst together referred to as the defendants below , seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and treble damages. The defendants did not contest the plaintiff s claim that Harmony sold Microsoft s products without any license s or authorization, or that they sold Microsoft s products stand alone, which violated Microsoft s license agreement. Instead, the defendants argued that their action was protected by the first sale doctrine ... products sold by Harmony. Furthermore, the court cited ISC Bunker Ramo Corp. v. Altech, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1310, 1331 N.D.Ill. 1990 there is no such thing as a bona fide purchase for value ... infringement of software Bobbs Merrill Co. v. Straus External links The description of Microsoft v. Harmony Computers from wikia http itlaw.wikia.com wiki Microsoft v. Harmony Computers Category United ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Bose v. Consumers Union ArgueDate November 8 ArgueYear 1983 DecideDate April 30 DecideYear 1984 FullName Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. USVol 466 USPage 485 Citation 466 U.S 485 Prior Judgment for plaintiff, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Ma. , 508 F.Supp. 1249 reversed, 692 F.2d 189 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 1st Cir. 1982 certiorari cert. granted, 466 U.S. 485 1984 Subsequent None Holding Product disparagement cases that involve First Amendment claims are governed by the actual malice standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . SCOTUS 1981 1986 Majority Stevens JoinMajority Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell Concurrence Burger Dissent White Dissent Rehnquist JoinDissent O Connor LawsApplied First Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. amend. I Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. , ussc 466 485 1984 , was a product disparagement case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States . The Court found, on a 6 3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of actual malice was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment to the United States Constitution First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly concluded that Bose had not presented proof of actual malice. The magazine Consumer Reports had published in 1970 a review of an unusual loudspeaker system manufactured by Bose Corporation , called the Bose 901. The review expressed skepticism of the system s quality and recommended that consumers delay purchase until they had investigated for themselves ... Co. v. Sullivan , the appeals court had to review the entire matter de novo in order to determine ... Corporation v. Consumers Union of the United States Category 1984 in United States case law ... more details
nofootnotes date August 2008 Infobox COA case Litigants Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit CourtSeal Image US GreatSeal Obverse.svg generic seal need court specific image ArgueDate March 17 ArgueYear 1983 DecideDate August 30 DecideYear 1983 FullName Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. Citations 714 F.2d 1240 3d Cir. 1983 70 A.L.R.Fed. 153, 219 U.S.P.Q. 113, 1983 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,565 Prior Injunction denied, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania E.D. Pa. July 30, 1982 motion for reconsideration denied Subsequent Rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 3d Cir. Sept. 23, 1983 Holding Computer software could be protected by copyright. District Court reversed and remanded. Judges Circuit Judges James Hunter III , A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. , Dolores Sloviter Majority Sloviter JoinMajority Hunter, Higginbotham Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied Copyright Act of 1976 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. , 714 F.2d 1240 3d Cir. 1983 , was the first time an appellate level court in the United States held that a computer s operating system could be protected by copyright . Franklin Computer Corporation introduced the Franklin Ace 100, a clone computer science clone of Apple Computer s Apple II , in 1982. Apple quickly determined that substantial portions of the Franklin Read only memory ROM and operating system had been copied directly from Apple s versions, and on May 12, 1982, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania . It cited the presence of some of the same embedded string computer science string s, such as the name James .... See Williams Elec., Inc., v. Artic Int l, Inc. , 685 F.2d 870 1982 . The Court of Appeals overturned ... Category Apple II family Category United States copyright case law Category Apple Inc. litigation ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. Court United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 9thCircuit Seal.svg 180px ArgueDate March 10 ArgueYear 1999 DecideDate April 22 DecideYear 1999 FullName Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. Citations http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c F3 174 174.F3d.1036.98 56918.html 174 F.3d 1036 Prior Brookfield Communications Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , No. 98 cv 09074 CM AJW C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1998 denying ex parte motion for temporary restraining order, denying ex parte motion for order to show cause regarding preliminary injunction . Subsequent Brookfield Communications Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23251 C.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 1999 ruling on summary judgment motions . Holding Brookfield has a valid, protectable trademark in MovieBuff and West Coast s use of the domain name moviebuff.com would cause a likelihood of confusion. West Coast can not use the term MovieBuff in the HTML metatags of its web site. Although there is no likelihood of confusion, the use of MovieBuff in the metatags could cause an initial interest confusion. Judges William Cameron Canby, Jr. , Diarmuid Fionntain O Scannlain , Kim McLane Wardlaw Majority Diarmuid Fionntain O Scannlain JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied usc 15 1114 , USCSec 15 1125 a , Lanham Act The case Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation 174 F.3d 1036 9th Cir. 1999 , heard by the United ... Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. , http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c F3 354 354.F3d.1020.00 ... confusion was likely to result. ref name Brookfield Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast ... Judge Berzon of the Ninth Circuit, in a concurring opinion in Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. , asked whether the court wanted to to continue to apply an insupportable ... more details
Cleanup date October 2010 Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. was a 1971 case in which the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that widespread, confidential disclosure of trade secrets does not necessarily compromise their secrecy. Data General Corporation distributed design documentation with its Data General Nova Nova 1200 minicomputer, notifying owners of the confidentiality of these design drawings through contractual agreements and explicit text on the drawings essentially a shrinkwrap license . After acquiring drawings with a Nova 1200 purchase, Digital Computer Controls designed its own nearly identical minicomputer. Digital Computer Controls maintained that its use of the documentation was proper because Data General Corporation inadequately maintained the secrecy of the design drawings by distributing them to many customers. The court found that Data General Corporation had sufficiently protected the secrecy of the drawings and that Digital Computer Controls was thus in violation of trade secret law for improperly using confidential information. Such a view ... reporter archives tabor hoffman.htm Tabor v. Hoffman , 118 N.Y. 30, 23 N.E. 12 N.Y. 1889 . ref ref Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. , 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E.2d 865 Ill. 1965 . ref and has ... identical in design ref name 1975case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. , 375 .... ref name 1972case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. 297 A.2d 437 Del. Supr ... Recent Decisions in Enforcement of Clickwrap Licenses DEFAULTSORT Data General Corp. V. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. Category Trade secrets Category Intellectual property law Category Data General ... items without the written permission of Data General Corp. Digital Computer Controls then used ... of trade secret misappropriation. ref name 1971case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. , 297 A.2d 433 Del. Ch. 1971 . ref Digital Computer Controls consequently moved for summary ... more details
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 , was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which addressed the question of whether or not the loading of a software program into Random Access Memory RAM by a computer repair technician makes a copy of the software that is a potential violation of copyright law. The court held that it did, although the United States Congress subsequently enacted an amendment to USC 17 117 to specifically overrule this holding in the circumstances of computer repair. Background Peak Computer, Inc. is a computer maintenance company that organized in 1990. Peak maintained computer systems for its clients by performing routine maintenance and emergency repairs. When providing maintenance or making emergency repairs, Peak booted the MAI computer, causing the MAI operating system to be loaded from the hard disk into RAM. MAI also alleged that Peak ran MAI s diagnostic software during Peak s service calls. This case involved the two parties MAI Systems and Peak Computer, as well as defendant Eric Francis, a former MAI Systems Corporation employee who joined Peak Computer, Inc. Copyright Issues MAI contended that Peak s use of the MAI operating system constituted copyright infringement. MAI argued that the license agreement which permitted an end user to make a copy of the program for their own use did not extend to Peak because Peak was not the licensee and therefore had no rights under the license agreement. The court agreed and granted partial summary judgment which prohibited Peak from continuing their method of operation. The court determined that a copy of a program made from a hard drive into RAM for purpose of executing the program was, in fact, a copy under the Copyright Act. The judges utilized the criteria set forth by UnitedStatesCode 17 101 , which states A work is fixed in a tangible ... as, or working with MAI Systems. External links MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , http www.law.cornell.edu ... more details
Compco Corp. v. Day Brite Lighting, Inc. , http supreme.justia.com us 376 234 case.html 376 U.S. 234 1964 . is a 1964 United States Supreme Court decision that was a companion case to Sears v. Stiffel , which the Court decided on the same day. Like Sears , Compco held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent law s was federal preemption preempted by federal law. Image DayBrite.jpg 300px thumb right Day Brite s lighting fixture Drawing from Day Brite s design patent Background Day Brite obtained a design patent on a lighting fixture, a cross ribbed reflector for fluorescent light tubes. Compco s predecessor copied the fixture and sold it in competition against Day Brite. Day Brite then sued for infringement of the design patent and unfair competition under Illinois state law, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois . The district court held the design patent invalid but ruled in Day Brite s favor on the unfair competition claim. The court found that the overall appearance of Compco s fixture was the same, to the eye of the ordinary observer, as the overall appearance of Day Brite s fixture, which embodied the design of the invalidated design patent that the appearance of Day Brite s design had the capacity to identify Day Brite in the trade, and does in fact so identify it to the trade that the concurrent sale of the two products was likely to cause confusion in the trade and that a ctual confusion has occurred. Accordingly, the court ordered Compco to pay damages and enjoined its further sale of the fixture. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment. It found that several choices of ribbing were apparently available to meet the functional needs of the product, yet Compco chose precisely the same design used by the plaintiff and followed it so closely as to make confusion likely. The only evidence of confusion was testimony by a Day Brite employee that a third party ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
