Intellectual property

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:

LAW & THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

Cases & Materials

First Edition, 2014

James Boyle

William Neal Reynolds Professor of Law

Duke Law School

Jennifer Jenkins

Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain

& Senior Lecturing Fellow

Duke Law School

Copyright ©2014 James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins

No claim is made to copyright on the public domain Federal cases or statutes.

This work is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial,

Share Alike License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

You are free to:

• Share—copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

• Adapt—remix, transform, and build upon the material

• The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license

terms.

Under the following terms:

• Attribution—You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license,

and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner,

but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Attribute as follows:

“James Boyle & Jennifer Jenkins, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW & THE

INFORMATION SOCIETY – CASES AND MATERIALS. First edition 2014. This

work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial,

Share Alike License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/

This is an [edited OR unedited] version of the original.”

• NonCommercial—You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

[Editor’s note: we interpret this to mean “providing the material above

cost.” Digital cost is zero. You are free to reproduce the material in paper

form and charge a fee to cover copying costs, but nothing more. This ap￾plies both to commercial and non commercial entities.]

• ShareAlike—If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must

distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

• No additional restrictions—You may not apply legal terms or technological

measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Note:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the

public domain—or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation

such as fair use. You may not attempt to put other limitations, not contained in this li￾cense, on any version that you reproduce.

If you want to do something this license does not allow, feel free to contact the

authors: boyle [AT] law.duke.edu

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. ix

Basic Themes: Three Public Goods, Six Perspectives ......................................................... x

An Open Course Book? ....................................................................................................... x

Structure and Organization .................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter One

THE THEORIES BEHIND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ........................................ 1

Problem 1-1: Framing .......................................................................................................... 3

James Boyle, The Apple of Forbidden Knowledge .............................................................. 4

Thomas Hazlett, Code Breakers ........................................................................................... 6

Problem 1-2: Justifying and Limiting .................................................................................. 7

John Locke, Of Property, from Two Treatises on Government ............................................ 8

James Boyle, “Why Intellectual Property,” from The Public Domain ................................. 11

John Perry Barlow, Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of

Mind on the Global Net ................................................................................................. 11

International News Service v. The Associated Press, 28 U.S. 215 (1918) ........................... 25

The New York Times, “News Pirating Case in Supreme Court” ........................................... 35

James Boyle, “Thomas Jefferson Writes a Letter,” from The Public Domain ..................... 37

Chapter Two

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & THE CONSTITUTION .......................................... 39

U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ........................................................................................ 39

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 39

Problem 2-1: Constitutional Interpretation .......................................................................... 40

1.) Limitations on Congressional Power: Originality .......................................................... 40

Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) ............................................................................... 40

Feist v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ........................................................ 44

(The full edit of the case is on page 301)

2.) Limitations on Congressional Power: Purpose and Novelty/Non-Obviousness ............ 45

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................... 45

(The full edit of the case is on page 746)

3.) Limitations on Congressional Power: Fixation & the Interaction between Clauses....... 45

Problem 2-2: Constitutional Interpretation .......................................................................... 45

U.S. v. Moghadam, 175 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) ............................................................. 46

U.S. v. Martignon, 492 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 54

4.) Limitations on Congressional Power: Limited Times, Term Extension and

the First Amendment ..................................................................................................... 59

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............................................................................... 59

Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012) ................................................................................ 77

Problem 2-3: Term Limits .................................................................................................... 84

Chapter Three

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & THE FIRST AMENDMENT .................................. 85

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987) .............. 85

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ................................................................................ 95

H.R. 2723: A Copyright in the Flag of the United States ..................................................... 97

Problem 3-1: Intellectual Property and the First Amendment .............................................. 99

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders v. Pussycat Cinema, 604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979) ............... 99

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) ................................. 102

Problem 3-2: Constitutional Interpretation: Review ............................................................ 105

Chapter Four

TRADEMARK: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 107

Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, excerpt .................. 107

Chart: Comparison of the Three Main Forms of Federal Intellectual Property ................... 110

Trademark Basics ................................................................................................................ 112

What are the sources of trademark law? ....................................................................... 113

Registered Marks ................................................................................................................. 114

Problem 4-1 ......................................................................................................................... 116

Chapter Five

SUBJECT MATTER: REQUIREMENTS FOR TRADEMARK PROTECTION ...... 117

Use as a Mark in Commerce ................................................................................................ 117

Use in Commerce ......................................................................................................... 117

Use in Commerce: Free and Open Source Software ..................................................... 118

Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001) .............. 118

Notes: Use-based and Intent-To-Use Applications ....................................................... 121

Notes: International Trademark Protection ................................................................... 122

Use as a Mark: Source Identification Function

a.) Actions of the Source ............................................................................................. 123

MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 345 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2001) ............................. 123

b.) Nature of the Mark: Distinctiveness ....................................................................... 127

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) ............... 127

Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) ............ 132

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) .............................. 135

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) .......................... 140

Jessica Litman, “The Exclusive Right to Read,” 13 CARDOZO ARTS &

ENT. L.J. 29 (1994) ................................................................................................ 144

TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) ........................ 146

Notes on Distinctiveness & Functionality .................................................................... 151

Problems 5-1–5-4 ................................................................................................................. 152

Chapter Six

GROUNDS FOR REFUSING REGISTRATION ........................................................... 153

1.) 1052(a) .......................................................................................................................... 153

i.) Disparaging marks .................................................................................................. 153

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Suzan Shown Harjo, 284 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003) ............... 154

Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080 (T.T.A.B. 2014) ....... 162

Problem 6-1 .................................................................................................................. 164

ii.) Marks that falsely suggest a connection to persons ................................................ 167

iii.) Immoral or scandalous marks ............................................................................... 167

In re Marsha Fox, 702 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 167

In re Hershey, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1470 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ...................................................... 168

Problem 6-2 .................................................................................................................. 168

iv.) Deceptive marks .................................................................................................... 169

2.) 1052(b) .......................................................................................................................... 169

3.) 1052(c) .......................................................................................................................... 170

4.) 1052(d) .......................................................................................................................... 171

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

5.) 1052(e) ........................................................................................................................... 171

i.) 1052(e) “desceptively misdescriptive” v. 1052(a) “deceptive” ............................... 171

ii.) Primarily geographically descriptive, or geographically

deceptively misdescriptive ..................................................................................... 172

iii.) Primarily merely a surname .................................................................................. 173

6.) 1052(f) ........................................................................................................................... 173

Problem 6-3 .......................................................................................................................... 174

Chapter Seven

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT .................................................................................. 177

1.) Use in Commerce .......................................................................................................... 177

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009) ........................................... 177

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney,

263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 183

2.) Likelihood of Confusion ................................................................................................ 187

Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) ............... 187

3.) Contributory Infringement ............................................................................................. 195

Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................ 196

Problem 7-1 .......................................................................................................................... 208

Chapter Eight

DEFENSE TO TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: FAIR & NOMINATIVE USE ..... 213

KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., et al.,

543 U.S. 111 (2004) ...................................................................................................... 214

New Kids on the Block v. New America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) ................ 217

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................... 221

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................... 225

Notes: Background on Search Technology .......................................................................... 228

Chapter Nine

FALSE ADVERTISING, DILUTION & ‘CYBERPIRACY’ ......................................... 231

1.) False Advertising: False or Misleading Statements of Fact ........................................... 231

Avon Products, Inc. v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............. 231

POM Wonderful, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014),

110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1877 ..................................................................................................... 237

2.) Dilution .......................................................................................................................... 241

a.) The Requirement that the Mark be Famous ............................................................ 242

Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......... 242

b.) The Requirement of “Commercial Speech”: Dilution by Tarnishment .................. 246

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2008) .......................... 246

c.) Dilution by Blurring ................................................................................................ 253

Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) .............. 253

Problem 9-1: Dilution of (by) Alcohol .......................................................................... 256

3.) “Cybersquatting” and “Cyberpiracy” ........................................................................... 256

Problem 9-2 ................................................................................................................... 260

Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................................... 260

Problem 9-3 ................................................................................................................... 270

Chapter Ten

INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT: THEORY & HISTORY ................................... 271

Copyright and the Invention of Authorship .......................................................................... 271

James Boyle, Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of

the Information Society (Harvard Univ. Press 1997), excerpt ....................................... 271

Three Views of Copyright (and the droits d’auteur) ............................................................ 276

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thomas Babington Macaulay, First Speech to the House of Commons on Copyright ........ 276

Victor Hugo, Speech to the Congress of Literary, Industrial and Artistic Property ............ 282

Samuel Clemens [Mark Twain], Statement before the Committee of Patents of the

Senate and House to discuss amending the Copyright Act ........................................... 284

Jennifer Jenkins, In Ambiguous Battle: The Promise (and Pathos) of Public

Domain Day, 2014, 12 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 1 (Dec. 31, 2013), excerpt .................. 289

Copyright History ................................................................................................................ 291

The 1976 Copyright Act ............................................................................................... 292

Copyright Expansions and Policy ................................................................................. 294

Copyright Office ........................................................................................................... 295

Chapter Eleven

COPYRIGHTABLE SUBJECT MATTER ..................................................................... 297

What does copyright cover? ................................................................................................ 297

Copyrightable Subject Matter .............................................................................................. 300

1.) Originality: Independent Creation and a Modicum of Creativity .................................. 301

Feist v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ....................................................... 301

Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998) ............. 307

Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998) ............. 311

James Boyle, A Natural Experiment .................................................................................... 314

Problem 11-1 ........................................................................................................................ 318

2.) The Idea-Expression Distinction ................................................................................... 319

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880) .................................................................................... 319

3.) Merger of Ideas and Expression .................................................................................... 323

Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971) .................... 323

Morrissey v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967) ..................................... 325

Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991) .................................................... 327

Problem 11-2 ....................................................................................................................... 337

4.) Useful Articles ............................................................................................................... 337

Brandir Intern’l, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987) ......... 337

5.) Methods of Operation: Introduction to Computer Software .......................................... 343

Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Intern’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) ................. 343

Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Intern’l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996) ........................... 357

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 872 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................ 358

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ 361

Problem 11-3 ........................................................................................................................ 363

6.) Fixation (Copyright Meets Software, continued) .......................................................... 363

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) .......................... 364

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom, 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..................... 369

James Boyle, “The Internet Threat,” from The Public Domain ........................................... 378

Chapter Twelve

COPYRIGHT’S “REACH”: INFRINGEMENT ............................................................ 381

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 381

Problem 12-1 ....................................................................................................................... 381

Exclusive Rights .................................................................................................................. 383

a.) The Idea/Expression Distinction in Infringement Analysis .................................... 384

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. et al., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) ......................... 384

b.) Copyright Meets Computer Software: The Infringement Edition .......................... 389

James Boyle, “A Machine that Contains All Other Machines,” from

The Public Domain ................................................................................................ 389

Computer Associates v. Altai, Inc., 923 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) .................................. 390

c.) Copyright in Characters .......................................................................................... 407

Anderson v. Stallone, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1989) ........................................ 407

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

d.) A Two-Part Test for Copyright Infringement .......................................................... 411

Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946) ............................................................ 411

Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990) ............................................. 414

e.) “De minimis” Copying ............................................................................................ 417

Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................... 418

Chapter Thirteen

LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE ............................................... 423

Problem 13-1 ........................................................................................................................ 424

1.) Fair Use, Technology and Contributory Infringement ................................................... 425

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ...................... 425

James Boyle, The Public Domain (excerpt) ......................................................................... 439

2.) Unpublished works, “Scoops” and Political Speech ...................................................... 440

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ................................................. 440

3.) Transformative Use, Parody, Commentary and Burdens of Proof Revisited ................. 448

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ...................................................................... 448

SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) ............................ 459

Problem 13-2 ........................................................................................................................ 464

4.) Fair Use Meets Technology ........................................................................................... 465

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................... 465

Problem 13-3 ........................................................................................................................ 474

Perfect 10 v. Google, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................ 475

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................. 481

Note on Transformative Use ................................................................................................ 485

5.) A Fair Use Case-Study: Multiple Copies for Classroom Use ........................................ 486

Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc.,

74 F.3d 1512 (6th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................... 486

Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc.,

99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996 en banc) ............................................................................ 496

Problem 13-4 ........................................................................................................................ 512

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 513

Chapter Fourteen

SECONDARY LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT &

SAFE HARBORS IN THE DIGITAL AGE .............................................................. 515

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 515

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ...................... 515

(The full edit of the case is on page 425)

Problem 14-1: The Napster Case ......................................................................................... 515

1.) The Stakes of Contributory Infringement ...................................................................... 517

2.) Contributory and Vicarious Infringement ...................................................................... 519

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................... 519

3.) Inducement Liability ...................................................................................................... 526

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) .................................................. 526

Problem 14-2 ........................................................................................................................ 539

4.) Safe Harbors: Section 512, Direct Infringement and Secondary Liability ..................... 540

U.S. Copyright Office Summary of Title II: Online Copyright Infringement

Liability Limitation ....................................................................................................... 542

Problem 14-3 ........................................................................................................................ 545

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F. 3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) ............................ 546

Chapter Fifteen

ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION: A NEW STATUTORY SCHEME ..................................... 557

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 558

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

James Boyle, The Public Domain (excerpt) ......................................................................... 560

1.) Anti-Circumvention, Fair Use, and the First Amendment ............................................. 561

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) .................................... 561

2.) Anti-Circumvention, Competition, and Consumer Choice ............................................ 576

Chamberlain v. Skylink, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 576

Problem 15-1 ....................................................................................................................... 582

3.) The Interaction between Copyright, Contracts, and the DMCA .................................... 583

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) .......... 583

Problem 15-2 ....................................................................................................................... 601

Chapter Sixteen

COPYRIGHT & STATE MISAPPROPRIATION LAW: PREEMPTION .................. 603

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 .................................................................................. 603

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 603

Problem 16-1: Framing and Preemption .............................................................................. 606

International News Service v. The Associated Press, 28 U.S. 215 (1918) ........................... 608

(The full edit of the case is on page 25)

1.) Subject Matter and General Scope: Extra Elements ...................................................... 608

National Basketball Assoc. v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) ......................... 608

2.) Preemption, Misappropriation & the Fact/Expression Dichotomy ................................ 617

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) ................ 617

Chapter Seventeen

PATENTS: HOPES, FEARS, HISTORY & DOCTRINE .............................................. 631

1.) Hopes and Fears ............................................................................................................ 631

2.) History ........................................................................................................................... 637

3.) Patent Basics ...................................................................................................... 639

a.) The America Invents Act ........................................................................................ 640

b.) The PTO Application Process ................................................................................ 641

c.) Reading a Sample Patent ........................................................................................ 641

d.) International patent law ........................................................................................... 649

Chapter Eighteen

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER .............................................................................. 651

1.) Laws of Nature and Natural Phenomena ....................................................................... 651

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) ................................................................... 651

James Boyle, Endowed by Their Creator?: The Future of

Constitutional Personhood (2011) ................................................................................ 656

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) ............... 660

2.) Abstract Ideas, Business Methods and Computer Programs ......................................... 667

James Boyle, The Public Domain (excerpt) ......................................................................... 667

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................. 669

Problem 17-1 ....................................................................................................................... 686

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intern’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................... 686

Problem 17-2 ....................................................................................................................... 693

Chapter Nineteen

REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT PROTECTION: UTILITY .................................... 697

1.) ‘Research Intermediaries’ and Hunting Licenses .......................................................... 697

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) ............................................................................. 697

2.) Genetic Engineering & the Utility Guidelines ............................................................... 703

USPTO Utility Examination Guidelines: Notice (2001) ...................................................... 704

3.) Utility in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .................................................. 709

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 709

Problem 19-1 ........................................................................................................................ 716

Chapter Twenty

REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT PROTECTION: NOVELTY .................................. 719

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 720

1.) Novelty: Basics .............................................................................................................. 721

Gayler v. Wilder, 51 U.S. 477 (1850) ................................................................................... 721

2.) Novelty: Novel to whom? .............................................................................................. 724

3.) Novelty: Anticipation of Every Element ........................................................................ 725

Coffin v. Ogden, 85 U.S. 120 (1873) .................................................................................... 725

Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California,

814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................... 727

4.) Novelty: Inherency ........................................................................................................ 730

In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................... 730

5.) Statutory Bar: Public Use .............................................................................................. 734

Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1 (1829) ................................................................................ 734

6.) Statutory Bar: The Experimental Use Exception ........................................................... 739

City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 (1877) ....................................................... 739

Problem 20-1 ........................................................................................................................ 742

Chapter Twenty-One

NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....................................................................................................... 745

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 745

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................... 746

1.) A Four Step Test for Obviousness .................................................................................. 752

Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................... 753

2.) The Scope of Prior Art ................................................................................................... 761

In re Carl D. Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................... 761

3.) Burden of Proof and “Obvious to Try” .......................................................................... 764

In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 764

4.) ‘These Are Not the PHOSITA’s you’ve been looking for. . . .’ ...................................... 767

Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437 (1984) ............................................ 767

Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?

17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1155 (2002) .............................................................................. 768

Problem 21-1 ........................................................................................................................ 770

Chapter Twenty-Two

A CREATIVE COMMONS? SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................. 773

James Boyle, “A Creative Commons” from The Public Domain ......................................... 776

Introduction

This book is an introduction to intellectual property law, the set of private legal rights that

allows individuals and corporations to control intangible creations and marks—from

logos to novels to drug formulæ—and the exceptions and limitations that define those

rights. It focuses on the three main forms of US federal intellectual property—trademark,

copyright and patent—but many of the ideas discussed here apply far beyond those legal

areas and far beyond the law of the United States. The cases and materials will discuss the

lines that the law of the United States draws; when an intellectual property right is needed,

how far it should extend and what exceptions there should be to its reach. But those ques￾tions are closely linked to others. How should a society set up its systems for encouraging

innovation? How should citizens and policy makers think about disputes over the control

of culture and innovation? How do businesses re-imagine their business plans in a world

of instantaneous, nearly free, access to many forms of information? How should they do

so? And those questions, of course, are not limited to this country or this set of rules. They

should not be limited to the law or lawyers, though sadly they often are.

A word on coverage: An introductory class on intellectual property simply does not

have time or space to cover everything. This course is designed to teach you basic princi￾ples, the broad architectural framework of the system, the conflicting policies and analyt￾ical tools that will be useful no matter what technological change or cultural shift

tomorrow brings. (Imagine the lawyer who started practicing in the late 1970s and had to

deal with cable TV, a global internet, digital media, peer to peer systems, genetic engi￾neering, synthetic biology . . . but also with viral marketing, the culture of “superbrand”

identity, cybersquatting and social media. You will be that lawyer, or that citizen. Your

world will change that much and you will need the tools to adapt.) But to fit in all those

tools, the course has to omit large swaths of detail. Some subjects are not covered at all.

For example, trade secrets, which are mainly but not entirely covered by state rather than

Federal law, will be touched on during the lectures, but are not discussed in the materials.

Standard form “click to accept” contracts and licenses are extremely important in the

world of digital commerce, but will be covered only to the extent they intersect with in￾tellectual property law. Even within the topics that are covered, the approach of the class

is highly selective. We will cover the basic requirements for getting a trademark, and the

actions that might—or might not—infringe that right. But we will not cover the complex￾ities of trademark damages and injunctions, international trademark practice or the fine

detail of the ways that Federal and state trademark law interact. Copyright law is full of

highly specialized provisions —applying special rules to cable television stations or music

licenses, for example. We will be mentioning these only in passing. Similarly, patent law

is an enormously complex field; there entire courses just on the details of patent drafting,

for example, and there is a separate “patent bar” exam for registered patent attorneys and

agents. This class will touch only on the basics of patentable subject matter, and the re￾quirements of utility, novelty, and non-obviousness.

As we will explain in a minute, one feature of this book makes this selectivity in

coverage less of a problem. Because this is an “open” casebook, an instructor can take

only those chapters that he or she finds of interest and can supplement, delete or edit as

she wishes.

x INTRODUCTION

Basic Themes: Three Public Goods, Six Perspectives

This book is organized around a debatable premise; that it is useful to group to￾gether the three very different types of property relations that comprise Federal intellec￾tual property law—trademark, copyright and patent. Obviously, trademarks over logos

are very different from copyrights over songs or patents over “purified” gene sequences.

The rules are different, the constitutional basis changes, the exceptions are different and

there is variation in everything from the length of time the right lasts to the behavior

required to violate or trigger it. Why group them together then? The answer we will de￾velop depends on a core similarity—the existence of a “good”—an invention, a creative

work, a logo—that multiple people can use at once and that it is hard to exclude others

from. (Economists refer to these as “public goods” though they have more technical def￾initions of what those are.) Lots of people can copy the song, the formula of the drug, or

the name Dove for soap. But the approach in this book also depends on the differences

between the goals of these three regimes and the rules they use to cabin and limit the

right so as to achieve those goals. The idea is that one gains insight by comparing the

strategies these very different legal regimes adopt. The proof of that pudding will be in

the eating. Our readings will also deal with the claim that the term “intellectual property”

actually causes more harm than good.

This book is built around six perspectives. Some are introduced as separate chap￾ters, while others are woven into the materials and the problems throughout the entire

class. The first deals with the main rationales for (and against) intellectual property. The

second focuses on the constitutional basis for, and limitations on, that property in the

United States. The third is the substance of the course; the basic doctrinal details of trade￾mark, copyright and patent. The fourth concentrates on the way that intellectual property

law reacts dynamically to changes in technology. We will focus on what happens when

trademark law has to accommodate domain names, when copyright—a legal regime de￾veloped for books—is expanded to cover software and when patent law’s subject matter

requirements meet the networked computer on the one hand and genetic engineering on

the other. In particular, the copyright portion of the course, which takes up the largest

amount of material by far, will detail extensively how judges and legislators used the

limitations and exceptions inside copyright law to grant legal protection to those who

create software, while trying to minimize anti-competitive or monopolistic tendencies in

the market. The fifth deals with the metaphors, analogies, similes and cognitive “typing”

we apply to information issues. This is an obviously artificial property right created over

an intangible creation; the way that the issue is framed—the baselines from which we

proceed, the tangible analogies we use—will have a huge influence on the result. Finally,

the conclusion of the course tries to synthesize all of these perspectives to point out pro￾spects, and guiding principles, for the future.

An Open Course Book?

This book is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non Com￾mercial, Share-Alike license. Later in the semester, you will be able to engage in learned

discussion of this arrangement. You will be able to work out what the copyright on the

book does and does not cover, (hint, Federal legal materials are in the public domain),

why (and how) the license is enforceable, and what rights you would have even in the

absence of a license (such as the right to quote or criticize). At the moment, all you need

to know is this. You are free to copy, reprint or reproduce this book in whole or part, so

long as you attribute it correctly (directions are given on the copyright page) and so long

as you do not do so commercially, which we interpret to mean “for a direct profit.” In

An Open Course Book? xi

other words, you can print copies and distribute them to your students or your friends

(who apparently have very geeky interests) at the cost of reproduction, but you may not

make a competing commercial edition and sell it for a profit. You can also modify this

book, adding other material, or customizing it for your own class, for example. But if

you do modify the book, you must license the new work you have created under the same

license so that a future user will receive your version with the same freedoms that you

were granted when you received this version.

Why do we do this? Partly, we do it because we think the price of legal casebooks

and materials is obscene. Law students, who are already facing large debt burdens, are

required to buy casebooks that cost $150–$200, and “statutory supplements” that consist

mainly of unedited, public domain, Federal statutes for $40 or $50. (To be fair, some

statutory supplements include useful appendices and explanations of particular

technologies or fields of regulation. Many do not, however.) The total textbook bill for a

year can be over $1500. This is not a criticism of casebook authors, but rather of the

casebook publishing system. We know well that putting together a casebook is a lot of

work and can represent considerable scholarship and pedagogic innovation. We just put

together this one and we are proud of it. But we think that the cost is disproportionate

and that the benefit flows disproportionately to conventional legal publishers. Some of

those costs might have been more justifiable when we did not have mechanisms for free

worldwide and almost costless distribution. Some might have been justifiable when we

did not have fast, cheap and accurate print on demand services. Now we have both. Legal

education is already expensive; we want to play a small part in diminishing the costs of

the materials involved.

We will make this casebook available in two ways. First, it will be available for

digital download for free. No digital rights management. No codes. No expiring permis￾sions. Second, a low cost but high quality paperback version will be available at a rea￾sonable price. Our goal will be to keep the price of the casebook around $30—which

given the possibility of resale, might make it an environmentally attractive alternative to

printing out chapters and then throwing them away. (The companion statutory supple￾ment will be available under a similar arrangement—though it will be much cheaper in

print and will be made available under a license that is even more open.) We also hope

both of these options are useful for those who might want to use the books outside the

law school setting. The casebook and the statutory supplement should be available for a

combined price close to $40, which is nearly $200 below the price of the leading alter￾natives in those categories. Those who do not want, or cannot afford, to pay that price

can use the free digital version.

The price of this book is intended to be a demonstration of just how fundamen￾tally unreasonable casebook costs are. We are making the digital version freely avail￾able and trying to price the paper version just above cost, but we entirely support those

authors who wish a financial reward. We calculate that they could actually set the price

of an 825 page book $100 cheaper than the average casebook today (albeit in paper￾back) and still earn a higher royalty per book than they currently earn. They could even

make the digital version freely available and do nicely on print sales, while benefiting

in terms of greater access and influence. Our point is simply that the current textbook

market equilibrium is both unjust and inefficient. Students are not the only ones being

treated unfairly, nor is the market producing the variety or pedagogical inventiveness

one would want. One practical example: using current print on demand technology,

images are as cheap as words on the page. This book has many of them. It is useful to

xii INTRODUCTION

see the Lotus v. Borland menus, the Redskins trademarks, the “food-chain Barbie” pic￾tures, the actual article from Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, to see the logos at

stake in the trademark cases, the allegedly copyrighted sculptures on which people park

their bikes, or a graphic novel version of the de minimis controversy in musical sam￾pling. Conventional casebooks will have one or two illustrations—and the publishers

might even charge their authors for including them. Our point is that the casebook is

not just vastly overpriced, it is awkward, inflexible, lacking visual stimulus, incapable

of customization and hard to preview and search on the open web. Even if this book is

flawed (and it is) it is an example of what can be done. There are others. We are not

the first to try and make open source educational material or even casebooks. We would

like to thank the good folk at Creative Commons and MIT Open Courseware, Barton

Beebe, Bryan Frye, Lydia Loren, CALI’s eLangdell, Jordi Weinstock, Jonathan Zit￾train, and the H20 project at Harvard for giving us ideas and inspiration.

We also have the hope that the inexorable multiplication of projects such as these

will be an aid to those still publishing with conventional textbook publishers. To the case￾book author trapped in contracts with an existing publishing house: remember when you

said you needed an argument to convince them to price your casebook and your supple￾ment more reasonably? Or an argument to convince them to give you more options in

making digital versions available to your students in addition to their print copies, but

without taking away their first sale rights? Here is that argument. There are many more

either already out there or in the pipeline. Traditional textbook publishers can compete

with free. But they have to try harder. We will all benefit when they do.

We hope that the tools of casebook assessment and distribution can also change

for the better. In the world we imagine, professors will be able instantly to browse, search

within and assess the pedagogical suitability of a free digital version of a casebook

online. Perhaps this will put a merciful end to the never-ending cascade of free but unread

casebooks in cardboard mailing boxes, and charming but unwelcome casebook repre￾sentatives in natty business suits—the 1950’s distribution mechanism for the casebook

in the halls of the 21st century law school. That mechanism needs to go the way of the

whale oil merchant, the typing pool and the travel agent. To the extent that the “justifi￾cation” offered for today’s prices is that they are needed to pay for the last century’s

distribution methods, we would have to disagree politely but emphatically.

But we have another goal, one that resonates nicely with the themes of the course.

Most authors who write a casebook feel duty-bound to put in a series of chapters that

make its coverage far more comprehensive than any one teacher or class could use. Jane

Scholar might not actually teach the fine details of statutory damages in copyright, and

whether they have any constitutional limit, but feels she has to include that chapter be￾cause some other professor might think it vital. As a result, the casebook you buy con￾tains chapters that will never be assigned or read by any individual instructor. It is like

the world of the pre-digital vinyl record. (Trust us on this.) You wanted the three great

songs, but you had to buy the 15 song album with the 9 minute self-indulgent drum solo.

This book contains the material we think vital. For example, it has introductory sections

on theoretical and rhetorical assumptions that we think are actually of great practical use.

It spends more time on constitutional law’s intersection with intellectual property or the

importance of limitations and exceptions to technological innovation than some other

books, and way less on many other worthy topics. Because of the license, however, other

teachers are free to treat the casebook in a modular fashion, only using—or printing—

the chapters, cases and problems they want, adding in their own, and making their own

“remix” available online as well, so long as they comply with the terms of the license.

Structure and Organization xiii

Structure and Organization

A word about the organization of the book: Each chapter has a series of problems.

The problems bring up issues that we want you to think about as you read the materials.

Some are intended to “frame” the discussion, others to allow you to measure your mastery

of the concepts and information developed, or to deepen your understanding of the analyti￾cal and argumentative techniques the book sets forth. The problems are covered under the

same license—you should feel free to extract them, even if you do not use the book.

The open licensing arrangement of the book means that we include little material

that is not either public domain, written by the authors themselves, or available under a

Creative Commons license. But since that same licensing arrangement allows for near in￾finite customization by users, we hope that is not too much of a problem. We include short

excerpts from The Public Domain—also Creative Commons licensed and freely down￾loadable—with hyperlinks to the full versions of those readings. We use it as a companion

text in the course. The excerpts provide historical and theoretical background keyed to the

discussion and the problems. Instructors and readers who wish to omit those readings, or

to insert other secondary materials, should just ignore them.

Some acknowledgements: We would like to thank Mr. Balfour Smith, the coordi￾nator of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School for his tireless

editorial efforts, for navigating the publishing process and for his nifty cover designs. He

produced this book at a speed we would not have believed had we not worked with him

before. He is a valued colleague, but he is also our friend.

We would like to thank generations of students—not only at Duke—for patiently

teaching their teachers what works and what does not. (Sorry if we still do not have that

entirely nailed down yet.) And just to show how grateful we are to other casebook

authors, even if not to the current casebook publishing system, we would like to thank

our predecessors for teaching us how hard it is to make a good casebook and how

important one can be. Particular thanks in that regard go out to Julie Cohen, Rochelle

Dreyfuss, Paul Goldstein, Edmund Kitch, Roberta Kwall, David Lange, Mark Lemley,

Jessica Litman, Robert Merges, and Peter Menell. Special thanks to Dana Remus but

also to Joseph Blocher, James Grimmelman, Kathy Strandburg and David Dame-Boyle

for being test readers. Finally, James thanks Jennifer and Jennifer thanks James. Aww.

If you adopt the book, or any part of it, please let us know. Comments to boyle

[AT] law.duke.edu will always be welcome, particularly if you can tell us why certain

chapters or exercises were helpful or not helpful to you as an instructor or student. Tell

us about your customizations—the ease of adaptation and revision is another reason to

like this method of publication.

This is very much a beta test version of the book. We realize its limitations and

shortcomings even more intensely than you do. We look forward to having readers, stu￾dents, and co-authors we have not yet met improve it for us. The next edition will be

better. Nevertheless, we hope you find it useful in its current form.

Digital versions will be available at http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/openip.

James Boyle

Jennifer Jenkins

Durham, NC, August 2014