Unreferenced date December 2007 CanadianAdmiral Corporation Ltd. v. RediffusionInc. , 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. CanadianAdmiral 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. CanadianAdmiral sued for copyright infringement. The issue was whether CanadianAdmiral 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
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 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. Facts In the 1970s Whirlpool developed an inventive dual action agitator for clothes washing machines that utilized the bottom portion of the shaft ... agitator to produce more uniform scrubbing. This development work resulted in three Canadian patents ... Court double patenting and claim construction were the issues. See also Canadian patent law List ... 67 Patents http patents.ic.gc.ca cipo cpd en patent 1113156 summary.html Canadian Patent 1113156 http patents.ic.gc.ca cipo cpd en patent 1150361 summary.html Canadian Patent 1150361 Canada law stub Category Canadian patent case law Category Supreme Court of Canada cases Category 2000 in Canada Category ... more details
Unreferenced date October 2006 Infobox Court Case name Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. court Supreme Court of Delaware image Seal of the Supreme Court of Delaware.svg imagesize 150 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. , 651 A.2d 1361 Del. 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 substantive 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 ... threat. See 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 ... more details
Infobox Court Case name TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit date decided April 20, 2011 full name TIVO INC., Plaintiff Appellee, v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION ... 1 TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2006 1574 Fed. Cir., January 31, 2008 . ref ref name Case 4 ... Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2009 1374 Fed. Cir., March 4, 2010 . ref ref name Case 5 http scholar.google.com ...&hl en&as sdt 2,5&as vis 1 TiVo Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., Civil Action No. 2 04 CV 01 E.D. Tex., June ... date May 21, 2011 url http jolt.law.harvard.edu digest software tivo incv echostar corp .... Timeline TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. stretched from January 2004 to April 2011, the timeline ... 2008 U.S. Supreme Court rejects hearing TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. November 2008 US Patent Office agrees ... to license TiVo s DVR technology. Opinion details TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., United States District ... EchoStar. ref name Case 1 TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2006 1574 Fed. Cir., January 31, 2008 ... sdt 2,5&as vis 1 TiVo Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., Civil Action No. 2 04 CV 01 E.D. Tex., September 4, 2009 . ref TiVo Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., Civil Action No. 2 04 CV 01 E.D. Tex., June 2, 2009 TiVo ... non infringing workarounds to its DVR software. ref name Case 4 TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2009 ... digest software tivo incv echostar corp ref to do so. With regards to the Disablement Provision ... name Case 4 TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2009 1374 Fed. Cir. April 20, 2011 en banc Majority Opinion ..., GAJARSA, LINN, LOURIE, MAYER, MOORE, NEWMAN, O MALLEY, PROST, RADER, AND REYNA TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar ..., Inc. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues ..., the court held that EchoStar EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc s patent and was in contempt ... Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single ... TiVo Inc s patent, resulting in the court issuing a permanent injunction against EchoStar Corp ... more details
Orphan date April 2012 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. ArgueDate February 29 ArgueYear 1988 DecideDate June 20 DecideYear 1988 FullName Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. USVol 487 USPage 22 Citation 108 S. Ct. 2239, 101 L. Ed. 2d 22 Prior Subsequent Holding Federal law governed District Court s decision whether to grant motion to transfer case to venue provided in contractual forum selection clause SCOTUS 1988 1990 Majority Marshall Concurrence Kennedy, joined by O Conner Dissent Scalia LawsApplied Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , Case citation 487 U.S. 22 1988 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law known as an Erie doctrine Erie question . The question in Stewart was whether the federal venue transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. 1404 a , occupied the field or whether Alabama law s unfavorable stance towards forum selection clauses should instead by applied. The Court held that the federal statute governed the District Court s decision whether to give effect to the forum selection clause. Background information Stewart Organization, Inc. brought a suit against Ricoh Corp. arising out of a dealership agreement which obligated Stewart to market the Ricoh s copiers. The agreement included a forum selection clause specifying that suits were to be brought in Manhattan. When Steward filed suit in Alabama, Ricoh moved to transfer the case to Manhattan pursuant to the forum selection clause. However, the Alabama District Court denied the motion because Alabama law looks unfavorably upon contractual forum selection clauses. However, the court certified an interlocutory appeal, which the Eleventh Circuit accepted. The Eleventh Circuit narrowly reversed the District ... Act, 28 U.S.C. 1652, mandated the use of state law. Applying the RDA analysis in Hanna v. Plumer ... 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 ... Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc vol 456 reporter F.Supp.2d opinion 393 date 2006 court United ... litigants Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc vol 562 reporter F.3.d opinion 123 date 2009 court United ... 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 ... cite court litigants Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc. vol 293 reporter F.Supp.2d opinion 734 date ... UHaul cite court litigants U Haul International, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc. vol 279 reporter F.Supp.2d ... . ref The Second Circuit in 1 800 Contacts v. WhenU.com Inc. upheld the above line of reasoning, holding ... 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 year 2009 ... Rescuecom v. Google author Eric Goldman date 3 April 2009 accessdate 21 October 2010 ref Google ... Google Inc. date 12 February 2007 accessdate 21 October 2010 ref was rejected by the court. Use in commerce ... infringement Lanham Act Law Google Inc. corporate yes products yes Category United States Court of Appeals ... 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 ... 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
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 in SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. When a consumer purchased ... softman v adobe SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. , http scholar.google.com scholar case?case ... the promotional 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 dn date March 2012 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. References reflist 2 External links Carver .... 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 .... 2001 . ref In Universal Music Group v. Augusto , the court also looked at the economic realities ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. full case name Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board of Canada v. Lucien Dagenais, L opold Monette, Joseph Dugas and Robert Radford heard date January 24, 1994 decided date December 8, 1994 citations 1994 3 S.C.R. 835 1994 CanLII 39 S.C.C. 1994 , 120 D.L.R. 4th 12 1994 , 94 C.C.C. 3d 289 1994 , 25 C.R.R. 2d 1 1994 , 34 C.R. 4th 269 1994 , 76 O.A.C. 81 docket history Judgment for the respondents in the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling ratio SCC 1994 1995 Majority Lamer C.J. JoinMajority Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ. Concurrence McLachlin J. Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Dissent2 Gonthier J. Dissent3 La Forest J. Dissent4 L Heureux Dub J. NotParticipating LawsApplied Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation , 1994 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication ban s and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 2 b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to minimize the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban. Background Four former and present members of the Christian Brothers, a Catholic order, were charged with sexual abuse of young boys while they were teachers at an Ontario Catholic school. During their trial the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced a dramatic mini series, based on another sexual abuse scandal at Mount ... 835 02.html summary at mapleleafweb.com Broken Link Category Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law Category Canadian freedom of expression case law Category Supreme Court of Canada cases Category ... more details
Italic title 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 US case law stub ... 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
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 F.3d ... 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. 1995 ... 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
Infobox Court Case name Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. court United States District Court United States District Court for S.D. Florida, 11th Circuit image date decided May 8, 1995 ref name CourtOpinion full name Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp., and D. Andrew Kasanicky, Defendants., U.S. District Court, SD Florida, Case No. 94 6475 CIV. citations judges Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge. prior actions subsequent actions opinions Italic title force true Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. 900 F.Supp. 433 was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 1995. The case ..., Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. , 900 F.Supp. 433 1995 . ref The case affirmed that it was copyright ... qx Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. , Find a Case , retrieved December ..., including ownership. ref name frena Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena , 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 M.D.Fla.1993 . ref Thus, this presumption by the Court shifted the burden to Starware Corp. to disprove the validity of the registration certificates. Next, Starware Corp. s allegation that a substantial ... work and the accused work. ref name original Original Appalachian Artworks , Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 829 11th Cir.1982 . ref It can also be shown by proving a striking similarity ..., Starware Publishing Corp., is profit corporation based in South Florida, which sells multimedia. PEI ... Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Assoc. Telephone Directory Publishers ,756 F.2d 801, 810 11th Cir.1985 . ref Because ... works and that the Corp. was therefore not liable for the infringement of these works because PEI ... Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co. ,584 F.2d 111, 113 5th Cir.1978 ref In this case, the defendant ..., Starware Corp. used the photographs in any of the ways described in Section 106 of the Copyright ... Corp. distributing nearly 10,000 copies of the CD ROM disks containing the unauthorized photographs ... 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 Italic title force true 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 17 U.S.C 109 a 1977 . After reviewing the facts, the court found that the defendants ... Ramo Corp. v. Altech, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1310, 1331 N.D.Ill. 1990 there is no such thing as a bona ... sale doctrine Copyright 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 ... 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 File US CourtOfAppeals 3rdCircuit Seal.svg 140px 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 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 Huston ... protected by copyright. See Williams Elec., Inc., v. Artic Int l, Inc. , 685 F.2d 870 1982 . The Court ... Apple Inc. litigation Category United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cases Category ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp Court United States ... by Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. in the Ninth Circuit. ref ... 9th Circuit decision DEFAULTSORT Playboy Enterprises, Inc. V. Netscape Communications Corp. Category ..., Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation v. Excite, Inc. Citations 354 F.3d 1020 Prior Subsequent ... should work through the eight factor test as first enunciated in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats ... 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 ... enterprises incv netscape communications corporation ref Facts Netscape allows advertisers to Targeted ... forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats , to determine the likelihood of confusion. Because each factor ... four. The eight factors are ref http openjurist.org 354 f3d 1020 playboy enterprises incv netscape ... ones subject to consumer confusion . ref http openjurist.org 354 f3d 1020 playboy enterprises incv ... 354 f3d 1020 playboy enterprises incv netscape communications corporation ref REVERSED AND REMANDED. See also Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. , 174 F.3d 1036 9th Cir. 1999 . Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. , No. 03 05340 N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007 . Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. , 638 F.3d 1137 9th Cir. 2011 ... LawsApplied Playboy v. Netscape , 354 F.3d 1020 9th Cir. 2001 was a case regarding trademark infringement ... of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. This action is legally considered trademark infringement under ... allowed Playboy Enterprises, Inc. to proceed with their claims of trademark infringement and dilution ... Enterprises, Inc. Despite the customer s later knowledge that the products they are purchasing ... three factor test, as originally stated in PEI v. Welles First, the product or service in question ... more details
unreferenced date May 2011 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. ArgueDate March 1 ArgueYear 2005 DecideDate June 23 DecideYear 2005 FullName Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. USVol 545 USPage 546 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding 28 USCA 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount in controversy requirements of 1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount in controversy requirements. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Kennedy JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Stevens JoinDissent Breyer Dissent2 Ginsburg JoinDissent2 Stevens, O Connor, Breyer LawsApplied 28 USC 1332, 28 USC 1367 ExxonMobile Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. , Case citation 545 U.S. 546 2005 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 USCA 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount in controversy requirements of 1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount in controversy requirements. Background Federal Courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction . Their jurisdiction is limited by the specific grants contained in Article III of the United States Constitution Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution , and their jurisdiction must be authorized by Congressional statute. Historically, Congress has authorized exercise of two primary types of jurisdiction in civil cases federal question jurisdiction 28 USC 1331 , which grants jurisdiction over civil cases wherein the plaintiff seeks adjudication on the grounds of some Federal statute or rule and diversity jurisdiction 28 USC 1332 , wherein the plaintiffs are from different states of the Union. In order to limit the number of cases ... Court in Finley v. United States regarding pendent party jurisdiction, Congress enacted 28 USC ... 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 ..., Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. , asked whether the court wanted to to continue to apply ... name playboy Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. , http bulk.resource.org courts.gov ... Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. , 354 F.3d 1020 9th Cir. 2001 . Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. , No. 03 05340 N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007 . Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. , 638 F.3d 1137 9th Cir. 2011 . References references Category ... Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation 174 F.3d 1036 9th Cir ... initial interest confusion was likely to result. ref name Brookfield Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation , http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c F3 174 174.F3d.1036.98 ... 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 Dissent2 Rehnquist JoinDissent2 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 ... Times Co. v. Sullivan , the appeals court had to review the entire matter de novo in order to determine ... Bose Corporation v. Consumers Union of the United States Category 1984 in United States case law ... 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 United States computer case law Category ... 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
Italic title force true 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 ..., the same as, or working with MAI Systems. External links MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , http www.law.cornell.edu copyright cases 991 F2d 511.htm 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 . Category ... more details
Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. USVol 473 USPage 614 Citation 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 ... Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. , ussc 473 614 1985 , is a United States Supreme ..., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. url http www.oyez.org cases 1980 1989 ... Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. , ussc 473 614 1985 , at 625 628. ref The antitrust ... of the Sherman Act in Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl O Mat, Inc. that the treble damages were primarily ... cite Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl O Mat, Inc. , ussc 429 477 1977 , at 485 86. ref ref name Majority ... Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. Citations http scholar.google.com scholar ...Infobox SCOTUS case italic title force Litigants Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. br Soler Chrysler Plymouth ... Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth Mitsubishi Motors II , ussc 473 614 1985 , at 617, Harry Blackmun .... v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. Mitsubishi Motors I , 723 F.2d 155 United States Court of Appeals ... of Scherk v. Alberto Culver, Inc. , a 1971 case where, again faced with a dispute between a domestic .... ref name Scherk v. Alberto Culver Scherk v. Alberto Culver, Inc. , ussc 417 506 1974 ... scholar case?case 5968507956536465650 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth Mitsubishi ... a case the Court had decided unanimously two weeks earlier, Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd , where ... Inc. v. Byrd , ussc 470 213 1985 . ref The preeminent concern of Congress in passing the FAA , Cross ... Corp. , ref name Moses Cone cite Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. , ussc ... territory. Nor did he find Southland Corp. v. Keating , in which the Court held the FAA applied to contracts executed under state law, ref name Southland Corp. v. Keating Southland Corp. v. Keating ... the arbitration clause, especially since the Court s Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg ... could be attacked in court. ref name Prima Paint Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. , ussc ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Compco Corp. v. Day Brite Lighting, Inc. ArgueDate January 16, 1964 ArgueYear DecideDate March 9, 1964 DecideYear FullName USVol 376 USPage 234 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding State law that effectively duplicates provisions of US patent law is federal preemption preempted by federal law. SCOTUS YEAR YEAR Majority Justice Black JoinMajority Concurrence Justice Harlan JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied 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 ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ArgueDate January 18 ArgueYear 1983 ReargueDate October 3 ReargueYear 1983 DecideDate January 17 DecideYear 1984 FullName Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al. USVol 464 USPage 417 Citation 104 S. Ct. 774 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 1984 U.S. LEXIS 19 52 U.S.L.W. 4090 220 U.S.P.Q. BNA 665 224 U.S.P.Q. BNA 736 55 Rad. Reg. 2d P & F 156 Prior Unfair competition claims dismissed, 429 Federal Supplement F. Supp. 407 United States District Court for the Central District of California C.D. Cal. 1977 judgment for defendants, 480 F. Supp. 429 C.D. Cal. 1979 affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded, 659 Federal Reporter Federal Reporter, Second Series F.2d 963 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 9th Cir. 1981 rehearing denied, 9th Circuit, 1982 certiorari cert. granted, 457 U.S. 1116 1982 reargument scheduled, 463 U.S. 1226 1983 Subsequent Rehearing denied, 465 U.S. 1112 1984 ... Act of 1976 Italic title force true Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , case ... 2003 month title Is Betamax Obsolete Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. in the Age ... inline Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. http www.law.cornell.edu copyright cases 464 US 417.htm Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 1984 opinion full text . http www.oyez.org cases 1980 1989 1982 1982 81 1687 Oyez summary DEFAULTSORT Sony Corp. Of America V. Universal City Studios, Inc. Category United States Supreme Court cases Category ... cases, particularly in light of recent peer to peer lawsuits for example, in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Case citation 239 F.3d 9th Cir. 2001 , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected .... In August 2004, in the case of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , ref http techlawadvisor.com ... Pamela Samuelson authorlink Pamela Samuelson title The Generativity Of Sony v. Universal The Intellectual ... more details
Orphan date February 2009 SCCInfoBox case name Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board full case name Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada Labour Relations Board and Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists heard date March 14, 1994 decided date January 27, 1995 citations 1995 1 S.C.R. 157 docket 23142 history Judgment against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the Federal Court of Appeal . ruling Appeal dismissed. ratio The standard of review of a Canada Labour Relations Board decision regarding labour practices is one of patent unreasonableness . An administrative tribunal s decision that interpretes external legislation does not automatically mean the standard of review becomes correctness , if the decision is one that would otherwise be within the tribunal s jurisdiction. SCC 1992 1997 Majority Iacobucci J. paras. 1 87 JoinMajority Lamer C.J. and Cory, and Major JJ. Concurrence La Forest J. para. 88 Concurrence2 L Heureux Dub J. paras. 89 93 Concurrence3 Sopinka J. paras. 94 98 Concurrence4 Gonthier J. para. 99 Dissent McLachlin J. paras. 100 136 NotParticipating LawsApplied Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board , 1995 1 S.C.R. 157 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review . The decision affirms the pragmatic and functional approach to labour relations and rules that the standard of review for interpreting external legislation should usually be one of standard of review correctness . Background Dale Goldhawk was a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CBC host of Cross Country Checkup and president of the Union. During the federal election, Goldhawk was an outspoken opponent of NAFTA and free trade. He wrote an article in the Union newspaper that was highly critical of free ... cases External links lexum scc2 1995 1 157 148 DEFAULTSORT Canadian Broadcasting Corp. V. Canada Labour Relations Board Category Canadian administrative case law Category Supreme Court of Canada ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
