On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the most substantial change to patent law in the United States since the Patent Act of 1952 [More]

In the past couple of months, two Congressional bills have been the subject of a heated debate between media industry giants and some of the world’s largest technology companies: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Senate counterpart the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). This legislation is meant to provide the Department of Justice and copyright holders with the ability to curb access to “rogue” foreign websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods. Since the U.S. government does not have the power to take down foreign websites, this bill would grant it the ability to forbid Internet providers from allowing users to connect to those sites. While many entertainment and pharmaceutical companies are in support of these bipartisan bills, digitally oriented companies such as Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have publicly voiced their opposition. Although the problems the bill attempts to address – online piracy, copyright, and trademark infringement – are serious and present a number of enforcement challenges, this vaguely written, catch-all legislation is alarming in its reach. [More]

On October 12, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. and Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd. (Docket No. 10-6; July 29, 2010) to consider what state of mind must be shown by a patentee, under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), to establish that a defendant induced infringement of a patent. That section simply states: “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §271(b).

The Supreme Court’s answer may have significant economic consequences, especially for foreign companies importing goods into the United States, because the statutory provision addresses indirect, rather than direct liability. Actions taken exclusively abroad could create liability for such companies, who must now contemplate the costs of complying with the to-be-announced Supreme Court standard. The standard will also affect whether officers and directors of a corporation would be held personally liable for indirect infringement. Such additional costs will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers and, given the scale of foreign trade in the U.S., these costs may have a large impact on the economy as a whole. [More]

For years the implications of the Coase Theorem have guided policy debates concerning the efficient allocation of property rights. Recently, many studies have pointed to the existence of the Endowment Effect. The Endowment Effect suggests that initial entitlement to certain property rights may matter, and has led many Scholars to re-examine previous assumption based on the main tenet of the Coase Theorem – absent transaction costs property rights will be allocated efficiently. This article will give an overview of the Coase Theorem, Rational Choice Theory, and the Endowment Effect and how they impact the bargain for exchange. [More]

As pitchers prepare to report to training camp, America’s favorite pastime is gearing up for the 2010 season. While players begin competing and vying for a coveted spot on the team roster, many Americans participating in fantasy baseball leagues are preparing to draft their own “dream team.” Each year fantasy baseball leagues gain more attention and participation, with an average of 29.9 million active users spending over $800 million dollars directly on fantasy sports products as well as $3 billion of sporting goods. [1] Within this lucrative field, the Major League Baseball Association (“MLB”) as well as the Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”) worry that the financial success of the fantasy sports industry may hinder potential revenue possibilities. Through the use of professional baseball players’ performance stats to determine the overall success of the fantasy teams, issues of copyright infringement as well as violation of the right to publicity arise, resulting in lawsuits against licensing deals and the overall leagues. Although professional athletes claim to have a right of publicity in their name as well as performance statistics, fantasy baseball leagues should continue as is because performance statistics are not copyrightable under the Federal Copyright Act and litigation in this matter would far exceed the benefits received by the MLB. [More]

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

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

I. Introduction

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

I. Introduction

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

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