Tag: copyright

CPIP’s Sandra Aistars & Scalia Law Alumnae Urge Federal Circuit to Protect Creators and Rein In Fair Use in Oracle v. Google

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date February 28, 2017

On February 17, 2017, CPIP Senior Scholar Sandra Aistars filed an amicus brief in Oracle v. Google, a copyright case currently before the Federal Circuit. Prof. Aistars worked in conjunction with Scalia Law alumnae Antigone Peyton and Jennifer Aktins of Cloudigy Law and third-year law student Rebecca Cusey to file the brief on behalf of 13 intellectual property scholars, including CPIP’s Matthew Barblan, Devlin Hartline, Sean O’Connor, Eric Priest, and Mark Schultz.

The amici urge the Federal Circuit to find that Google’s for-profit, verbatim copying of thousands of lines of Oracle’s copyrighted code was not fair use. They note that an overly broad application of the fair use defense “threatens the fundamental protections of copyright law,” and they argue that “the application of fair use in this case must be faithful to the underlying purposes of both copyright law and the fair use defense.” The amici point out that there would be “significant negative ramifications for all authors” if the Federal Circuit were to excuse Google’s copying of Oracle’s creative work for the purpose “of creating a competing commercial product.”

The amici conclude: “Expanding the fair use defense to excuse appropriation of software code for commercial gain will harm both creators and the public, as creators will have less incentive to develop new software. The public will not be well-served by policy that slows down the creative advancement of software. Nor will the public be well-served by an application of fair use that will gut copyright protection for other creative works by excusing a purely commercial copying of a creative work that harms the market for the original or its derivatives.”

To read the amicus brief, please click here.

Tags copyright, fair use, Federal Circuit, Google, intellectual property

Shaping Fair Use to Promote Fair Markets

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date February 24, 2017

How does fair use policy in copyright law affect markets for the production and distribution of creative works? As we come to the end of Fair Use Week, it’s a good time to highlight a report by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, titled “Fair Use in the Digital Age,” that offers interesting insights into how we can optimize fair use to promote fair markets. The report takes aim at stakeholders in the entertainment and media sectors who call for weaker copyright protections at a time when the creative industries are already being undercut by spiraling digital piracy that shows no signs of abating. The report creates an economic model that opens new vistas for economically sound fair use policy in high-production-cost creative industries. And its application would help judges and lawmakers approach fair use questions in a consistent and empirically sound manner, free from the rhetoric that swirls around much of today’s fair use debates.

The concept of “fair use” in the U.S. carves out exceptions and limitations to copyright’s exclusive property rights by allowing copyrighted works to be used in certain circumstances without permission or compensation. Some other countries—like Australia and New Zealand—have an analogous carve-out in the concept of “fair dealing.” U.S. copyright law sets out four factors that must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a particular use constitutes a fair use. In “fair dealing” countries, specific uses that are permitted are enumerated by statute. In theory, both fair use and fair dealing are subject to statutory construction and judicial interpretation, and can be given wide or narrow berth. In practice, though, proponents of the U.S. version argue that fair use offers greater “flexibility” to allow the use of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

“Fair Use in the Digital Age” constructs an economic model of exceptions and limitations to copyright under fair use that focuses on the goal of incentivizing the creation of new works. The objective behind the report is to determine an “optimal” level of fair use (or fair dealing) – i.e., a level in which some appropriation can occur without significantly impairing the rights and returns of copyright owners. The report finds that “optimal” fair use should be more constrained when: (i) the cost of the original work is high; (ii) the size of the market for the original work is small; (iii) piracy and other forms of leakages—which reduce the market potential for the original work—are large; (iii) the cost of distributing secondary works is lower; (iv) small amounts of transformation matter a lot to consumers; and (vi) the fixed cost of producing secondary works is smaller.

The report seeks to “analyz[e] fair use formally and rationally.” In so doing, it concludes that “much of the advocacy for broader exceptions in copyright law is misguided.” The report argues forcefully that the characteristics of digital technologies that fair use advocates look to when calling for expanded “flexibility” actually suggest that we should be reducing exceptions and limitations to copyright. This holds particularly true in smaller markets, which tend to have high rates of copyright misappropriation and higher enforcement costs. While calling for further research on the matter, the report marks a noteworthy step in analyzing fair use rationally and carefully, and offers a clear and reasonable economic model for keeping fair use well-determined, well-designed, and fair.

Tags copyright, fair dealing, fair use, law and economics, Phoenix Center, piracy

Can Copyright Help Fight Censorship in China?

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date February 17, 2017

Free expression in China has long been a fraught concern for the entertainment industry. Last year, Chinese regulators forbade local companies from working on foreign films that could “harm national dignity and interest of China, cause social instability, or hurt the national feeling,” striking at the rapidly expanding Chinese post-production industry for Hollywood films. A further proposed regulation, now winding through China’s political—and politicized—approval process, demands “excellence in both professional skills and moral integrity” from the Chinese film business. As Chinese investors continue to acquire stakes in Hollywood studios and cinema chains, these regulations threaten to undermine global film producers striving to gain market share in China’s enormous entertainment sector.

China’s local film industry also stands to suffer from the new draft film laws, which codify the view of China’s top political advisors that movies need to be “more centered on the people, guided by core socialist values.” The national media regulator in China has already warned local entertainment and media programs not to “express overt admiration for Western lifestyles,” not to be overly commercial, and not to forget to inject communist values in their products. The results with respect to local production have been underwhelming: films with overtly communist messages have done poorly at the box office, while films that cater to audiences’ fascination with Western tastes and values remain hugely popular and in demand.

Chinese policy makers’ zeal for regulating and curtailing free expression seems unlikely to abate. Yet at the same time, Chinese audiences’ hunger for a broad array of expressive content, including works that openly embrace Western values and preferences, seems equally strong and unlikely to subside. Can this conundrum be resolved, or at least improved, anytime soon?

A fascinating paper by CPIP Senior Scholar Eric Priest offers a market-based analysis that gives hope for a way forward to gradual—and meaningful—liberalization and reform of the formal rules that govern China’s entertainment industry. Priest argues that copyright laws and practices can strengthen commercialization in the Chinese film industry, creating “complex interlocking power relations between the audience, producers, and censoring authorities.” The strength of market-backed private producers in this regime is considerable and creates leverage that can effectively push back against the authority of government censors. The concentrated strength and influence of private producers in China, underpinned and driven by market forces and economic realities, can provide a counterbalance to state censorship that Priest argues “will erode censorship practices and increase expressive diversity in Chinese media.”

Central to Priest’s analysis is the importance of copyright law as a tool for creating private property rights in original expression and thereby enabling private producers to create and commercialize new works. While many scholars argue that copyright law creates legal barriers around expressive works and thus works in parallel with state censorship, Priest argues quite the opposite. He contends that copyright bolsters private production of creative works, making it easier for film producers to push back against censors while offering popular market-based (rather than merely state-approved) creative content.

Priest’s analysis of the development of the Chinese film industry, and his exploration of the gradual way in which its state-mandated boundaries are being tested and slowly moved, is rich and detailed. He is careful to note the limits of even gradual market-based reform, pointing to films that have not been approved, sometimes for unclear reasons. Further, he recognizes that attempts by the Chinese government to allow a more open media while simultaneously seeking to maintain ideological control may create an irreconcilable dilemma for Chinese policymakers.

Priest suggests that a hardline turn is a possible outcome, but he argues that it would lead to a downturn in the Chinese film industry that would be unacceptable to Chinese authorities. He argues that Chinese censorship officials would be better off taking a “more organic, permissive, and experimental approach to censorship practice, while leaving the more restrictive formal laws intact as a baseline standard until circumstances warrant a change in formal laws.” As noted earlier, this does not appear to be the direction in which the government is currently headed, suggesting that other priorities—such as upholding socialist norms, embracing didacticism, and promoting authoritarian tenets—may remain the order of the day in China. But Priest takes the long view, and so should we: the film market will speak in China, and it will speak loudest when it is supported by market realities and the choices of the people it serves.

Tags censorship, China, copyright, didacticism, Eric Priest, free expression, piracy, property rights

IP Scholars Explain Why We Shouldn’t Use SurveyMonkey to Select Our Next Register of Copyrights

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date January 31, 2017

In a letter submitted to House Judiciary Committee today, nine IP scholars (organized by CPIP’s Sandra Aistars) express their support for the Committee’s proposal to modernize the Copyright Office. The letter identifies three major challenges facing the Copyright Office, including “(1) insufficient funds, staff, and infrastructure to efficiently perform its core functions; (2) operational impediments stemming from its integration with the Library of Congress; and (3) potential risk of constitutional challenges to its decision-making authority should the Office take on increased regulatory or adjudicatory responsibility.”

The IP scholars laud the Committee’s recommendation that the Office be led by a principal officer of the government, nominated and confirmed like other senior government officials. The scholars also express their concern with the Library’s highly-unusual method of using a SurveyMonkey questionnaire to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to run the Copyright Office.

On December 16th, the newly-appointed Librarian solicited the public to “provide input to the Library of Congress on expertise needed by the Register of Copyrights.” The survey consists of the following three questions:

1. What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?

1. What should be the top three priorities for the Register of Copyrights?

Are there other factors that should be considered?

The survey then provides an area to upload additional comments and assures that the feedback “will be reviewed and will inform development of knowledge, skills and abilities requirements for the position.”

While there may be benefits to soliciting public input on the knowledge, skills, and abilities a Register of Copyrights should embody, as the IP scholars’ letter points out, relying on a limited SurveyMonkey experiment discounts the guidance codified in Section 701(b) of the Copyright Act. Section 701(b) already lists the functions and duties of the Register of Copyrights, including:

(b) In addition to the functions and duties set out elsewhere in this chapter, the Register of Copyrights shall perform the following functions:

(1) Advise Congress on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters.(2) Provide information and assistance to Federal departments and agencies and the Judiciary on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters.

(3) Participate in meetings of international intergovernmental organizations and meetings with foreign government officials relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, including as a member of United States delegations as authorized by the appropriate Executive branch authority.

(4) Conduct studies and programs regarding copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, the administration of the Copyright Office, or any function vested in the Copyright Office by law, including educational programs conducted cooperatively with foreign intellectual property offices and international intergovernmental organizations.

(5) Perform such other functions as Congress may direct, or as may be appropriate in furtherance of the functions and duties specifically set forth in this title.

Rather than crowd sourcing the job description, the Librarian should review the Copyright Act and consider candidates that would be best qualified to fulfill the explicit and established standards of 701(b).

By handing this over to anyone willing to fill out a SurveyMonkey form, the Library of Congress is politicizing a process that shouldn’t be politicized. The letter warns that “[w]hile it is often laudable to seek public input on important issues of policy, an online survey seeking input on job competencies from any internet user is an inefficient and inappropriate approach for developing selection criteria for this important role, particularly where such minimal background is provided to survey-takers and where there appears to be no mechanism to encourage constructive comments.”

As recently as April of last year, Fight for the Future incited an effort to spam the Copyright Office while it solicited comments regarding the DMCA notice and takedown process. Engaging in a campaign of misinformation, the advocacy group flooded the Office with automated “comments” that crippled the regulations.gov website during the last 48 hours of an important collection period. The Register’s selection process should not be handed over to Internet bullies and trolls.

The next Register of Copyrights will have an immediate and lasting effect on the administration of copyright laws, and the Library of Congress should respect long-standing norms as well as Congress’s instructions as embodied in the Copyright Act. The IP scholars’ letter reiterates that the statutory obligations of Section 701(b) require certain competencies of a Register of Copyrights and ensures that “the successful candidate can meet the management and leadership expectations attendant to a senior executive officer position in the federal government.” This is an important process that deserves more serious consideration than a SurveyMonkey poll.

Tags copyright, Kevin Madigan, Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress, notice and takedown, Register of Copyrights, SurveyMonkey, U.S. Copyright Office

Innovation

How IP Helps Individuals

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date January 25, 2017

This is the second in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property and Global Prosperity.” The Conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The second panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference discussed the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) on people’s lives. Day or night, wherever we are, IP is around us—from movies, music, books, smartphones, and computer tablets to essentials like transportation, clothing, food, and medicines—each involving some aspect of IP. Yet we rarely think of how these products are brought to us, or more importantly, the ways in which they have changed our personal and professional lives.

The panelists, Prof. Kristina Lybecker (Colorado College), Ken Stanwood (WiLAN), Howard Rachinski (Christian Copyright Licensing International), Stephen Bock (Church Music Publishers Association), and Prof. Mark Schultz (Southern Illinois University School of Law, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property) revealed how intellectual property benefits individuals by creating jobs, promoting cultural diversity, and bringing innovative products, services, and medicines to marketplaces worldwide.

Prof. Kristina Lybecker discussed how intellectual property helps individuals by promoting innovation, job creation, and international trade. She presented an international competitiveness index showing that the most innovative economies have the strongest IP regimes. The opposite is also true, and economies with weaker IP protection are less innovative and competitive on a global scale. Comparing data from the top-30 countries that comprise nearly 80% of the global economy, including the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, Lybecker showed that the correlation between innovation and IP protection is indeed very strong.

Likewise, intellectual property contributes significantly to jobs, wages, and trade. Lybecker presented data showing that there are 55 million jobs in the U.S. supported by IP-intensive industries, representing 46% of all private sector employment. These industries contribute $5.8 trillion to U.S. output each year, accounting for nearly one-third of total GDP. Wages in IP-focused industries are 30% higher than in other sectors, and 74% of U.S. exports come from IP-related industries. Lybecker noted that stronger IP regimes attract greater foreign direct investment and R&D spending, which increases the spread of technology and spurs market growth.

Finally, Lybecker discussed the strong correlation between drug availability and IP rights in the pharmaceutical industry. Data shows that countries with the strongest IP protection enjoy the quickest launches for new medicines and the greatest availability of treatments and cures for their populations. The U.S., for example, has the strongest IP protection for both pharmaceutical products and processes, and it is a global leader in pharmaceutical innovation.

Ken Stanwood from WiLAN highlighted the role that intellectual property in the wireless sector plays in improving people’s lives. WiLAN invented a fundamental technology that is used in the Wi-Fi physical layer that was a significant stepping stone toward broadband cellular technologies like smartphones. Since then, wireless IP has created new markets and provided better access to existing markets. For example, wireless communications and GPS technology enable popular services such as Uber and Car2Go.

Stanwood discussed how wireless IP empowers women in developing countries. For instance, Grameen Bank’s “village phone” program provides microloans to women in Bangladesh to purchase cellphones that are then shared with others in their villages. Not only has this program improved the lives of individual women by increasing their role in the family, but it has also created social and economic benefits for the entire community by providing better access to health care, education, and business transactions.

The introduction of the portable eye examination kit in Africa was another of Stanwood’s examples of how wireless IP improves people’s lives. A special portable camera attached to a smartphone enables schools, remote health providers, emergency medical workers, nurses, and general practitioners to perform various eye exams for afar, including pupil assessment, retinal evaluation, cataract examination, and even to diagnose cerebral malaria.

Howard Rachinski and Stephen Bock discussed how IP in the church music industry benefits congregations. With over 350,000 churches in the U.S. and 2.18 billion Christians around the globe, the industry is massive both in publishing and consumption. Before the digital age, publishers distributed hymnals to churches while paying royalties to songwriters and copyright owners. Congregants sang only those songs found in the hymnals, which could often be decades old. The digital age, however, changed this paradigm, and people now want a larger variety of songs. This change in music consumption has brought many challenges.

Rachinski and Bock noted that the entire church music industry reconsidered its practices and searched for new ways to empower worship by facilitating access to legal content. Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) contracted with copyright owners to aggregate their rights and make them available to churches for an affordable annual fee. CCLI currently works with 250,000 churches in 40 countries to provide more than 100,000 licensed songs of worship. Not only has this licensing scheme ensured the very survival of the church music industry, but it has also enabled more Christians to become professional songwriters.

Prof. Mark Schultz discussed how IP helps bring products to consumers. Organizations like the Gates Foundation often talk about how hard it is to bring medicines to people. In some places, vaccines are delivered on the backs of camels and donkeys. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 2 billion people around the globe have no access to medicine. And yet, Schultz noted, some products are available in every corner of the world. For example, Coca-Cola sells 2 billion servings of its products daily across the globe.

Indeed, Schultz pointed to Coca-Cola as a valuable case study on international network distribution and asset management. The protection of its brand allows Coca-Cola to secure returns on investment, protect its good will, and prevent copying of its products. Coca-Cola reduces costs by working with nearby distributors to produce, bottle, and ship its products locally. Finally, Coca-Cola has a network of local stakeholders (licensees, distributors, and consumers) who are interested in genuine products being delivered to the market. Schultz noted that the system works best when the local IP system is stable.

Lastly, Schultz turned to the evidence establishing the correlation between strong IP rights and economic growth. He referred to one economic index that demonstrated a positive relationship between patent protection and importations into developing countries. Likewise, Schultz discussed the index he created with Prof. Douglas Lippoldt illustrating that the strength of the trade secret system has positive effects on exports. They found that stronger IP regimes lead to the delivery of more pharmaceuticals and the introduction of more technological services.

Together, the five panelists gave concrete examples of the critical role of IP in helping individuals both domestically and internationally. Not only does IP create jobs, new markets, and business opportunities, but it also enables access to healthcare, medicines, education, and technologies. A strong IP system bolsters innovation, invites investment, and brings products to people. With the right IP strategy, companies can continue innovating and making a positive impact on people’s lives.

Tags 2016 Fall Conference, access to medicine, copyright, Howard Rachinski, Ken Stanwood, Kristina Lybecker, Mark Schultz, Maryna Koberidze, patent, Stephen Bock, trade secret, trademark

President Supreme Court

Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date January 23, 2017
No Comments on Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees

By Andrew Baluch [1] & Devlin Hartline

President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination.

Below is a summary of the intellectual property backgrounds of President Trump’s twenty-one potential Supreme Court nominees. The summary addresses judicial, legislative, and legal experience, as well as education and scholarly work. The summary includes data on each nominee’s intellectual property cases, whether decided as a judge or argued in private practice. Where appropriate, the summary also notes legislative bills that were co-sponsored by the nominee.

Click on the nominee’s name in the table below to jump down to their detailed summary.

SUMMARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES
		Cases Decided as Judge				Cases Argued in Private Practice
No.	Nominee	Patent	Trademark	Copyright	Trade Secret	Patent	Trademark	Copyright	Trade Secret
1	Blackwell, Keith	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	Canady, Charles	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	Colloton, Steven	2	9	1	0	0	0	0	0
4	Eid, Allison	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
5	Gorsuch, Neil	0	7	4	3	0	0	0	0
6	Gruender, Raymond	0	5	7	2	0	0	1	0
7	Hardiman, Thomas	1	6	5	3	0	0	0	0
8	Kethledge, Raymond	0	4	2	1	5	0	0	0
9	Larsen, Joan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
10	Lee, Mike	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1	0	0	0
11	Lee, Thomas	0	0	0	3	0	27	2	1
12	Mansfield, Edward	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
13	Moreno, Federico	3	15	9	3	0	0	0	0
14	Pryor, William	0	3	3	0	0	0	0	0
15	Ryan, Margaret	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
16	Stras, David	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
17	Sykes, Diane	4	5	8	2	0	0	0	0
18	Thapar, Amul	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
19	Tymkovich, Timothy	1	5	6	2	0	0	0	0
20	Willett, Don	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
21	Young, Robert	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0

1. Keith R. Blackwell

Supreme Court of Georgia (2012 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Court of Appeals of Georgia (2010 – 2012)

Prior Legal Experience

Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP; Assistant District Attorney, Cobb County, GA; Alston & Bird LLP; Law Clerk to Judge J.L. Edmondson (11th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Georgia School of Law (1999); BA, University of Georgia (1996)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	1 total (in favor of owner)
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots, Inc., 314 Ga. App. 459 (2012)

2. Charles T. Canady

Florida Supreme Court (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2002 – 2008)

Prior Legislative Experience

U.S. Representative (R-FL) (1993 – 2001) (House Judiciary Committee); Florida House of Representatives (1984 – 1990)

Prior Legal Experience

General Counsel to Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, PA; Holland & Knight

Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Representative

Co-sponsored 13 bills involving intellectual property, including: 104th-H.R.1733, Patent Application Publication Act of 1995 (introduced); 104th-H.R.1127, Medical Procedures Innovation and Affordability Act (introduced); 104th-H.R.587, Biotechnological Process Patents (passed House); 104th-H.R.359, Patent Term Restoration (introduced)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1979); BA, Haverford College (1976)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	1 total (in favor of malpractice defendant law firm and against client patentee)
Trademark	2 total (all in favor of owner)
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009); Florida Virtual Sch. v. K12, Inc., 148 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 2014); Rooney v. Skeet’r Beat’r Of Sw. Florida, Inc., 898 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

3. Steven M. Colloton

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2003 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Iowa; Adjunct Lecturer, University of Iowa College of Law; Private Practice, Iowa; Associate Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Iowa; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Law Clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman (D.C. Circuit)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1988); BA, Princeton University (1985)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	2 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trademark	9 total (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	1 total (in favor of owner)
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co., 817 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2016); Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc., 415 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2005); B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013); C.B.C. Distribution & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007); Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004); Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 129 F. App’x 323 (8th Cir. 2005); Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prod., Inc., 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004); Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc. v. MQVP, Inc., 466 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2006); Sensient Techs. Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co., 613 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2010); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2011); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)

4. Allison H. Eid

Colorado Supreme Court (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Solicitor General, State of Colorado; Associate Professor, University of Colorado School of Law; Arnold & Porter; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Stanford University (1987)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	1 total (dissenting in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0 (but in 1 case analogizing to patent law for “full compensation” damages)
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Acoustic Mktg. Research, Inc. v. Technics, LLC, 198 P.3d 96 (Colo. 2008)

5. Neil M. Gorsuch

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Principal Deputy to U.S. Associate Attorney General; Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans; Law Clerk to Justice Byron R. White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

Education

DPhil, Oxford University (2004); JD, Harvard Law School (1991); BA, Columbia University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	7 total (2 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	4 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	3 total (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Earthgrains Baking Companies Inc. v. Sycamore Family Bakery, Inc., 573 F. App’x 676 (10th Cir. 2014); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, 627 F. App’x 682 (10th Cir. 2015); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida, 611 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2010); Hargrave v. Chief Asian, LLC, 479 F. App’x 827 (10th Cir. 2012); Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp., 531 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012); Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009); Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008); Russo v. Ballard Med. Prod., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014)

6. Raymond W. Gruender

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Thompson Coburn LLP; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Lewis Rice & Fingersh

Education

JD, Washington University (1987); MBA, Washington University (1987), BA, Washington University (1984)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	5 total (5 in favor of owner
Copyright	7 total (4 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	1 total (amicus brief on behalf of U.S. Copyright Office)
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Dryer v. Nat’l Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016); First Nat. Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat. Bank S. Dakota, 679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2012); Jones v. W. Plains Bank & Trust Co., 813 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2015); Kforce, Inc. v. Surrex Sols. Corp., 436 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Almgren, 685 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2012); Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 598 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2010); Strange Music, Inc. v. Anderson, 419 F. App’x 707 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Frison, 825 F.3d 437 (8th Cir.); United States v. Sweeney, 611 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2010); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 840 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2016); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, 653 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2011)

7. Thomas M. Hardiman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2007 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (2003 – 2007)

Prior Legal Experience

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Titus & McConomy LLP; Reed Smith LLP

Education

JD, Georgetown University Law Center (1990); BA, University of Notre Dame (1987)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	1 total (in favor of negligent law firm)
Trademark	6 total (5 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	5 total (3 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	3 total (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Ackourey v. Sonellas Custom Tailors, 573 F. App’x 208 (3d Cir. 2014); Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 540 F. App’x 103 (3d Cir. 2013); Avaya Inc., RP v. Telecom Labs, Inc., 838 F.3d 354 (3d Cir. 2016); Boyle v. United States, 391 F. App’x 212 (3d Cir. 2010); Brand Mktg. Grp. LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc., 801 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2015); Dow Chem. Canada, Inc. v. HRD Corp., 587 F. App’x 741 (3d Cir. 2014); FedEx Ground Package Sys. v. Applications Int’l Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26651 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2005); Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners, G.P., 340 F. App’x 110 (3d Cir. 2009); Groupe SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2014); Aslam v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 404 F. App’x 599 (3d Cir. 2010); Sims v. Viacom, Inc., 544 F. App’x 99 (3d Cir. 2013); Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Diallo, 476 F. Supp. 2d 497 (W.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 575 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2009); William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009); World Entm’t Inc. v. Brown, 487 F. App’x 758 (3d Cir. 2012)

8. Raymond M. Kethledge

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC; Feeney Kellett Wienner & Bush PC; Counsel, Ford Motor Company; Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Judiciary Counsel to U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI); Law Clerk to Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. (6th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Michigan Law School (1993); BA, University of Michigan (1989)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	1 total (in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	5 total (all on behalf of infringer/generic pharmaceutical company)
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret:	0

Cases: Kerr Corp. v. Freeman Mfg. & Supply Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6342 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009); Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC v. Marcos, 651 F. App’x 482 (6th Cir. 2016); L.F.P.IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 533 F. App’x 615 (6th Cir. 2013); Nagler v. Garcia, 370 F. App’x 678 (6th Cir. 2010); R.C. Olmstead, Inc., v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010); Taylor v. Thomas, 624 F. App’x 322 (6th Cir. 2015); In re Desloratadine Patent Litig., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2007); PDL BioPharma, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56948 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2007); Schering Corp. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41020 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2007); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35206 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2008); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46730 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2008)

9. Joan L. Larsen

Michigan Supreme Court (2015 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan Law School; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Visiting Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

Education

JD, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (1993); BA, University of Northern Iowa (1990)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

10. Michael S. Lee

U.S. Senator (R-UT) (2011 – present)

Prior Legislative Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Howrey LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (U.S. Supreme Court); General Counsel to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Utah; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (3rd Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Dee Benson (D. Utah)

Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Senator

Co-sponsored 6 bills involving intellectual property: 114th-S.2733, VENUE Act (introduced); 114th-S.1137, PATENT Act (introduced and voted yes); 113th-S.1720, Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 (introduced); 114th-S.328, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.1816, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.517, Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (became law)

Education

JD, Brigham Young University Law School (1997); BS, Brigham Young University (1994)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	N/A
Trademark	N/A
Copyright	N/A
Trade Secret	N/A

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	1 total (on behalf of infringer Deutsche Bank)
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Island Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 15212 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2012)

11. Thomas R. Lee

Utah Supreme Court (2010 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Rex & Maureen Rawlinson Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University; Howard, Phillips & Anderson LLC; Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, PC; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III (4th Circuit)

Scholarly Articles on Intellectual Property

Thomas R. Lee, et. al., An Empirical and Consumer Psychology Analysis of Trademark Distinctiveness, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 1033 (2009); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis, 98 Trademark Rep. 913 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer, 57 Emory L.J. 575 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, Demystifying Dilution, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 859 (2004); Thomas R. Lee, Eldred v. Ashcroft and the (Hypothetical) Copyright Term Extension Act of 2020, 12 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (2003); Thomas R. Lee, et. al. “To Promote the Progress of Science”: The Copyright Clause and Congress’s Power to Extend Copyrights, 16 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2002); Thomas R. Lee, In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 75 Wash. L. Rev. 97 (2000) (proposing an “in rem” solution to the problem of cyberpiracy)

Education

JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Brigham Young University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	3 total (all in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	27 total (all on behalf of owner)
Copyright	2 total (1 on behalf of owner; 1 on behalf of infringer)
Trade Secret	1 total (on behalf of infringer)

Cases: InnoSys, Inc. v. Mercer, 364 P.3d 1013 (Utah 2015); Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013); USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 372 P.3d 629 (Utah 2016)

12. Edward M. Mansfield

Iowa Supreme Court (2011 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Iowa Court of Appeals (2009 – 2011)

Prior Legal Experience

Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach & Flynn, PC; Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP; Adjunct Professor, Drake University Law School; Law Clerk to Judge Patrick Higginbotham (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1982); BA, Harvard University (1978)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	1 total (on behalf of owner)
Trademark	1 total (on behalf of infringer)
Copyright	1 total (on behalf of infringer)
Trade Secret	1 total (on behalf of owner)

Cases: Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales del Centro S.A. de C.V., 384 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Iowa 2005), aff’d, 464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Amerus Group Co. v. Ameris Bancorp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32722 (S.D. Iowa May 22, 2006); Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131652 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016); Midwest Oilseeds, Inc. v. Limagrain Genetics Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28698 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 8, 2002)

13. Federico A. Moreno

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (1990 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (1987 – 1990); Miami-Dade County Court (1986 – 1987)

Prior Legal Experience

Thornton, Rothman & Moreno, PA; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida; Rollins, Peeples & Meadows, PA

Education

JD, University of Miami School of Law (1978); BA, University of Notre Dame (1974)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	3 (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trademark	15 (11 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	9 (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	3 (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Biotanic, Inc. v. Vazquez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2010); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Fla. 1998); Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Coach Servs. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67739 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2010); Davis v. Raymond, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68392 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2013); Erika Boom & Belly & Kicks I, LLC v. Rosebandits, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158528 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2013); CEyePartner, Inc. v. Kor Media Group LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98370 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2013); Fuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2010); HFuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5298 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2011); Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc. v. Pramil S.R.L. (ESAPHARMA), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98005 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2007); Gen. Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla.); Glob. Innovation Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hosp. Research Inst., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003); MHermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129469 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. IFITNESS, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46824 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2012); Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Golden Sun, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 1997); HLorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100985 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2010); Milk Money Music v. Oakland Park Entm’t Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121661 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2009); NPA Assocs., LLC v. Lakeside Portfolio Mgmt., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22805 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2014); Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Polvent v. Global Fine Arts, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130936 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2014); Promex, LLC v. Perez Distrib. Fresno, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90677 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2010); Setai Hotel Acquisitions, LLC v. Luxury Rentals Miami Beach, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171396 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2016); TNT USA, Inc v. TrafiExpress, S.A. de C.V., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2006); SValeant Int’l (Barb.) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193254 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2012); Valeant Int’l (Barbados) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128742 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011); Valoro, LLC v. Valero Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014); Y.Z.Y., Inc. v. Azmere USA Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192674 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2013)

14. William H. Pryor, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Visiting Professor, University of Alabama School of Law; Attorney General, Alabama; Deputy Attorney General, Alabama; Adjunct Professor, Samford University, Cumberland School of Law; Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Bains; Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal; Law Clerk to Judge John M. Wisdom (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Tulane University School of Law (1987); BA, Northeast Louisiana University (1984)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	3 total (all in favor of owner)
Copyright	3 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: ADT LLC v. Alarm Prot. Tech. Florida, LLC, 646 F. App’x 781 (11th Cir. 2016); Genesys Software Sys. v. Ceridian Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20914 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016); Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2015); Latele TV, C.A. v. Telemundo Communs. Group, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20345 (11th Cir. Fla. May 26, 2016); Navellier v. Fla., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21473 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 1, 2016); Singleton v. Dean, 611 F. App’x 671 (11th Cir. 2015); Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes & of Malta v. Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, The Ecumenical Order, 809 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2015)

15. Margaret A. Ryan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Wiley Rein LLP; Bartlit Beck Palenchar & Scott LLP; Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Judge Advocate, U.S. Marine Corps

Education

JD, Notre Dame Law School (1995); BA, Knox College (1985)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

16. David R. Stras

Minnesota Supreme Court (2010 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Professor, University of Minnesota Law School; Faegre & Benson LLP; Sidley Austin Brown & Wood; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Melvin Brunetti (9th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Kansas School of Law (1999); MBA, University of Kansas (1999); BA, University of Kansas (1995)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	1 total (in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp., 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014)

17. Diane S. Sykes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Wisconsin Supreme Court (1999 – 2004); Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County (1992 – 1999)

Prior Legal Experience

Whyte Hirschboeck & Dudek SC; Law Clerk to Judge Terence T. Evans (E.D. Wis.)

Education

JD, Marquette University Law School (1984); BS, Northwestern University (1980)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Trademark	5 total (2 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	8 total (4 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	2 total (all in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Allan Block Corp. v. Cty. Materials Corp., 512 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2008); Bell v. Lantz, 825 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016); Cent. Mfg., Inc. v. Brett, 492 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007); Chicago Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014); Coach, Inc. v. DI DA Imp. & Exp., Inc., 630 F. App’x 632 (7th Cir. 2016); Consumer Health Info. Corp. v. Amylin Pharm., Inc., 819 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.); Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011); Furkin v. Smikun, 237 F. App’x 86 (7th Cir. 2007); Georgia-Pac. Consumer Prod. LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2011); Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 769 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2014); Hecny Transp., Inc. v. Chu, 430 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2005); Hyson USA, Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd., 821 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2016); Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011); Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008); nClosures Inc. v. Block & Co., 770 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2014); Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., 586 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2009); Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2014); Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd. v. Haworth, Inc., 467 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006); Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Xenon Pharm., Inc., 591 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2010)

18. Amul R. Thapar

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Ohio; General Counsel, Equalfooting.com; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia; Trial Advocacy Instructor, Georgetown University Law Center; Adjunct Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School; Adjunct Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Adjunct Professor, Northern Kentucky University, Chase College of Law; Williams & Connolly; Squire Sanders & Dempsey; Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Law Clerk to Judge Nathaniel R. Jones (6th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge S. Arthur Spiegel (S.D. Ohio)

Education

JD, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law (1994); BS, Boston College (1991)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	1 total (in favor of infringer)
Copyright	1 total (in favor of owner)
Trade Secret	1 total (in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015); Fastenal Co. v. Crawford, 609 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Ky. 2009); Rich & Rich P’ship v. Poetman Records USA, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

19. Timothy M. Tymkovich

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2003 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Hale Hackstaff Tymkovich, LLP; Colorado Solicitor General; Davis Graham & Stubbs; Bradley Campbell Carney & Madsen; Law Clerk to Justice William H. Erickson (Colo. Supreme Court)

Education

JD, University of Colorado School of Law (1982); BA, Colorado College (1979)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	1 total (in favor of owner)
Trademark	5 total (4 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright	6 total (1 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret	2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Cases: Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006); Celebrity Attractions, Inc. v. Okla. City Pub. Prop. Auth., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15244 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016); Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG, 762 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 2014); Enter. Mgmt. Ltd., Inc. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2013); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 311 F. App’x 136 (10th Cir. 2009); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16055 (10th Cir. May 26, 2015); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014); Team Tires Plus, Ltd. v. Tires Plus, Inc., 394 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2005); Tomelleri v. MEDL Mobile, Inc., 657 F. App’x 793 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. Shengyang Zhou, 717 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2013); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008)

20. Don R. Willett

Supreme Court of Texas (2005 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Deputy Texas Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy; Special Assistant to the President and Director of Law and Policy, President George W. Bush; Domestic Policy and Special Projects Adviser, Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign; Director of Research and Special Projects, Governor George W. Bush; Haynes & Boone, LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Jerre S. Williams (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Duke University School of Law (1992); BBA, Baylor University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	1 (dissenting in favor of state-court jurisdiction for patent negligence suits – a view ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court)
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011)

21. Robert P. Young, Jr.

Michigan Supreme Court (1999 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Michigan Court of Appeals (1995 – 1999)

Prior Legal Experience

General Counsel, AAA Michigan; Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

Education

JD, Harvard Law School (1977); BA, Harvard College (1974)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent	0
Trademark	1 total (in favor of owner)
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent	0
Trademark	0
Copyright	0
Trade Secret	0

Case: Citizens Ins. Co. v. Pro-Seal Serv. Grp., Inc., 477 Mich. 75 (2007)

[1] Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Intellectual Ventures for its invaluable research support.

Tags Andrew Baluch, Antonin Scalia, copyright, Devlin Hartline, intellectual property, nomination, nominee, patent, President Trump, Supreme Court, trade secret, trademark

Economic Study Innovation

Creative Upstarts and Startups: How IP Creates Opportunities and Opens Doors

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date January 11, 2017

This is the first in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property & Global Prosperity.“ The conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The opening panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference examined how intellectual property (IP) creates opportunities for startups and creative upstarts. Unfortunately, IP policy debates often refer to a misguided notion that intellectual property hinders innovation and creativity, especially among smaller businesses. The panelists, Prof. Deepak Hegde (NYU Stern School of Business), Brian Detwiler (Cobro Ventures, Inc.), Prof. Jerry Liu (University of San Francisco School of Law), and Antigone Peyton (Cloudigy Law, PLLC), illustrated how this notion ignores the fact that intellectual property provides incentives and security for startups and small businesses entering the market and enables returns on investments.

Prof. Deepak Hegde discussed a study he undertook to measure the extent that patents benefit startups. Patents provide incentives for innovation by affording the right to exclude others from making, selling, or otherwise using the patented invention. This incentive is ensured by increasing the cost of imitations, while facilitating licensing and access to venture capital by innovators. At the same time, there is a concern that patents are not as effective for smaller entrepreneurs because patents take too long to issue (three years on average), they are costly to obtain ($20,000 in patent application costs on average), and are expensive to enforce once infringed. The study, however, shows that timely patents do substantially benefit startups.

Hegde noted that measuring the causal effect of patent rights on startups is often an empirically challenging task due to the lack of complete data on issues like rejected patent applications, firm outcomes, and correlations between patenting and startup success. However, Hegde was able to show a positive causal relationship between approval of the first patent application and various measures of startup success such as persistent employment growth and higher sales.

For instance, Hegde found that approval of the first patent application by a medium-sized firm with eight employees leads to three more employees (on average) hired within the five years following approval. Likewise, a medium-sized firm with $4.3M in revenue has $2.3M higher sales over the five years following approval of its first patent. Moreover, approval of the first patent application leads to a 66.4% increase in the number of subsequent applications, a 48.4% growth in the number of approved patents, and a 68.5% increase in the number of total citations.

On the other hand, Hegde discovered that delays in the patent approval process reduce sales growth, with each year of delay reducing growth by 28.4% over the five years following approval. Delays also reduce the quality and quantity of subsequent innovations, with a 14% decrease in number of subsequent applications and a 8% reduction in number of total citations. Even more so, a five-year approval delay is comparable in effect to not granting a patent at all. Finally, Hegde showed that patent approvals causally increase the probability of venture capital funding by 57%, and thus, help to set startups on a growth path.

Brian Detwiler discussed the challenges startups face from a more practical point of view. Specifically, Detwiler focused on two startups that Cobro Ventures is currently managing. Measures of success differ among the two. For a health & fitness center, the issue is profitability, and for a tech startup, the concern is typically acquisition or an initial public offering. Because Cobro Ventures is a self-funded company, it does not encounter some of the funding challenges as other startups. It does, however, face the same intellectual property issues as others in the industry.

The critical issue for a startup in the fitness industry, Detwiler noted, is building a strong brand identity to distinguish itself from other companies in the crowded marketplace. CrossFit is one good example of how a strong brand makes a business successful: CrossFit generates its revenues solely from licensing its brand out to gyms and fitness centers, without operating any of its own.

Tech startups, continued Detwiler, are more invested in the value of their patents because patent due diligence is a major component of any tech acquisition. Bundles of patents and open continuations are what acquirers value the most. The former allows acquisition of all patents associated with a particular technology; the latter provides opportunities to expand claims to pending patents down the road. A patent by itself does not necessarily guarantee the merit of a particular technology, but it certainly shows that at least the Patent Office believes that the particular technology was unique in the marketplace at the time of issuance. Patents can also be used as weapons in protecting a company’s interests and as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Detwiler stated that trademark registration is equally accessible to startups and big corporations because it is inexpensive (the filing fee is about $300 per class of goods/services), easy to file (only 10 minutes), and fast (around 3-4 months). With patents, the biggest challenge is getting a notice of allowance. There is a common misconception that all patent applications have the same value. This may be true for big corporations that file thousands of patent applications each year. But for startups, which usually have only two or three applications that they depend on, each such application is incredibly important, and if rejected, causes a lot of frustration.

Even though startups have more executive involvement in the patent approval process and are more willing to accept reasonably narrow claims at the outset, Detwiler said the patent examination process is still too lengthy. To get the best of it, he suggested that applicants explain in plain terms what they want to protect, examiners explain in plain terms what they found in their prior art searches, and both sides explore how to capture the claimed invention.

Prof. Jerry Liu talked about the study he undertook on market incentives and intrinsic motivations in the creative industries, particularly in the Chinese music industry. He focused his study on how online piracy affects the music industry and how real-world artists respond to copyright incentives. According to Liu, the Chinese music industry is significantly underdeveloped as compared to the United States. While the overall Chinese economy is fast approaching the size of the U.S. economy, the Chinese music industry represents only 1.5 % of the U.S. music industry.

Liu found that this outcome has little to do with the overall economic environment in China. Even though the music industry experienced a substantial decline since 2005, the economy as a whole enjoyed about 10% of annual growth. Nor is this a consequence of the infamous censorship system in China. Unlike the music industry, the book industry in China has demonstrated growth by 129% for the last decade. The likely reason for this difference is that the piracy rate in the music market is much higher than it is in the book market.

Empirical data collected by Liu establishes the correlation between online piracy and the Chinese music industry downturn. Online piracy surged in 2005, the very same year when music production started to decline significantly. As a result of such widespread piracy, music products have become undervalued among consumers. Only 25.4% of Chinese consumers are willing to pay for music, and only 5.9% actually pay for music. Online piracy has also caused a significant imbalance in the development of the digital music market. Notably, the Chinese government itself recently recognized that uncontrolled piracy has devastated the digital music marketplace.

In China, Liu said that online music services, including downloads and streaming, account only for 1% of the total digital market, while mobile sales (e.g., ringtones) hold 99% market share. But only 32.6% of music consumers are accessing music on their mobile devices, while 96.8% of users access music online. This shows that Chinese consumers pay the least for the most popular channel of music consumption. Additionally, online piracy affects business models in the music industry. For instance, record labels have moved away from their traditional role as investors. They are now working with new artists either on a self-funded basis (labels only provide services and artists bear all the risks of investment) or under so-called “360-degree deals” (labels sign artists for long-term contracts and retain more control over their careers and even their personal lives).

Finally, Liu highlighted the paradox of intrinsic motivations: 92% of the surveyed artists named emotional benefits as their incentive to create, and 97% of those artists also recognized the importance of economic benefits for creation. Importantly, many artists started their career in music not because of the money, but many of them also gave it up because of the money. In this way, copyright protection may provide a powerful incentive for artists to create in that it preserves their artistic freedom while ensuring a decent level of living and a fair return of production costs.

Antigone Peyton talked about strategies for tech companies to protect their assets. In this regard, she noted the importance of contracts at the early stages of the product development cycle. From the copyright prospective, contracts help to establish whether hired developers are employees or independent contractors and to ensure that their rights are assigned to the company. Without a written, explicit assignment of a copyright, a company may get in trouble down the road. For instance, when registering its work with the Copyright Office, enforcing its rights, or selling its assets to a third party.

Peyton stressed that companies working with the government need to understand what intellectual property rights they are giving away and to avoid assigning away all of their rights. Government contracts often include IP provisions that provide the government with a fully-paid license and allow it to bring in another contractor to continue the job. Another important aspect involves privacy policies, especially in the cyber security area. Companies that innovate in this sector usually bring people and know-how to the table, but not necessarily anything that is patentable. To protect its know-how, such a company should consider signing non-compete agreements with the people working with the company.

The barriers to entry for starting up a company in the software industry are small, said Peyton. But that means there are a lot of such companies out there trying to compete with each other for market space. To this end, companies need to think carefully about brand development and brand recognition, as well as how to protect their markets from competitors.

Peyton noted that if a company believes it has patentable subject matter, it should consider filing a patent application early on. However, patenting is the most expensive IP regime and usually requires the help of a patent professional (even with provisional applications). Patents are particularly critical in the biotech, chemical, and pharma industries that are money-intensive endeavors, which largely depend on attracting venture capital investment as early as possible. Generally, tech companies do not need to choose between copyrights and patents, and they may pursue both options to protect their software. But investing in copyrights and brand development is a relatively inexpensive way to start out and build an IP portfolio. Depending on the technology used, trade secret protection may also be an option for tech startups.

Together, the four panelists highlighted how intellectual property has a critical value for startups and small companies in the creative and innovative industries. Not only does IP ignite their businesses, but it also brings opportunities for future growth through sales, licensing, or acquisition. A strong IP portfolio is an invaluable asset, and building it early allows companies to open more doors.

Tags 2016 Fall Conference, Antigone Peyton, Brian Detwiler, copyright, creative upstarts, Deepak Hegde, innovation, intellectual property, IP, Jerry Liu, Maryna Koberidze, patent, startups, trade secret, trademark

Librarians’ Contradictory Letter Reveals an Alarming Ignorance of the Copyright System

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date December 19, 2016

On December 14th, a group of librarians sent a letter to Congress explaining why they believe the Copyright Office should remain under the control of the Library of Congress. Written by University of Virginia Library’s Brandon Butler, the letter is a self-contradicting and uninformed response to recent recommendations on reform of the Copyright Office offered by leading members of the House Judiciary Committee. While the lawmakers’ report proposes overdue, sensible reforms to the framework of a department in need of modernization, the librarians’ letter favors a one-sided approach to reform and reveals a gross misunderstanding of how copyright law and the Copyright Office ensure public access to creative works.

The Letter Embraces the Very Conflict It Claims to Reject

The letter begins by criticizing another recent letter to Congress from former Registers of Copyright Ralph Oman and Marybeth Peters in which they question the recent firing of Register of Copyright Maria Pallante and discuss the urgent need for an independent Copyright Office. Butler takes issue with the former Registers’ suggestion that the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office have different priorities and distinguishable missions, insisting that if any tensions exist, they are a result of bias at the Copyright Office. Alleging that the former Registers and the Copyright Office are “on the side of authors and media companies,” Butler proclaims that libraries “in all their richness and complexity” truly serve the interest of all. It’s a nice-sounding theory, but unfortunately it’s completely inaccurate and soon contradicted by a palpable disregard for the rights of authors and creators.

Claiming that librarians and the Library of Congress don’t subscribe to the theory of an adverse dichotomy between authors and the public, the letter then reinforces this theory by suggesting the scales should be tipped in favor of the public. In one paragraph, Butler endorses the “important balance between the short-term, private interests of authors and intermediaries, and the long-term interests of the public.” Curiously, just after he lauds this “important balance,” it is abruptly discarded as a reflection of “a narrow conception” and “inimical” priorities that cause an unproductive tension between the Office and the Library of Congress. Soon after describing libraries as the “fulcrum” upon which the balance of copyright and the public interest rests, the letter declares that “[we] reject this false dichotomy between copyright and the public interest.”

Regardless of this hollow denunciation, it’s clear that Butler believes there is a conflict between the interests of authors and the interests of the public, as he preaches to it throughout the letter. After paying lip service to rising above tensions between copyright and the public interest, Butler distinctly pushes for a system that values libraries over creators and the rights in their works. Describing the “crucial parts” of the copyright system embraced by libraries and librarians, the letter lists “fair use, first sale, interlibrary loan,” and claims that “without them libraries as we know them in this country could not exist.” One might argue that more crucial to the existence of libraries are the creative works that line their stacks, but this reality doesn’t seem worth mentioning. In fact, Butler asserts that copyright law has a “fundamentally public-serving character,” contrary to the letter’s earlier emphasis on serving copyright owners, authors, and the public equally. After praising the balance, then rejecting it, the letter unequivocally elevates the importance of the access libraries provide over the contributions and rights of creators.

The Letter Fails to Take into Account a Complex Creative Economy Based on Property Rights

James Madison observed in Federalist No. 43 that “the public good fully coincides . . . with the claims of individuals.” The Founders of our country recognized that creative economies are built upon the property rights of authors and artists, and as CPIP’s recent policy brief on creative markets explains, they “had the foresight to recognize that the public ultimately benefits when this protection is secured by law.” Promoting the public interest by recognizing the importance of individual interests was a theory drawn from Adam Smith and his seminal The Wealth of Nations. In it, Smith explained that concerted efforts to benefit the public are often less effective—and less helpful to society—than uncoordinated individual efforts to pursue private interests, and that society benefits the most when individuals are empowered to create valuable goods and services by pursuing their own interests.

Embodying these principles, copyright empowers authors and creators to pursue their own private interests by granting them exclusive property rights in their works. These same property rights support creative industries and provide significant benefits by playing a key role in facilitating the myriad transactions that contribute to a vibrant creative economy grounded in free market principles. Among other things, these property rights enable the division of labor, encourage product differentiation and competition, and spur investments in the development and distribution of creative works. Copyright not only incentivizes the creation of works, but also the commercialization of these works through further development, marketing, and distribution.

Copyright’s intricate ecosystems are based on incentives that ensure the continued creation and distribution of original works of authorship, yet the librarians’ letter doesn’t seem to appreciate their significance or how they function. Butler dedicates much of the letter to emphasizing the importance of public access to copyrighted works, but access is only the final step in a complex system of investment, commercialization, and distribution of creative works. The librarians claim to “understand that copyright is a complex ecosystem,” but nothing in the letter validates this assertion. The only part of the creative economy they deem worth discussing is the end result of access, with all other imperative stages either not realized or ignored.

The Librarians Are Oblivious to a Broken System

Ending with a plea to Congress not to interfere with the current “relationship” between the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, the letter claims the Library is in the best position to lead a desperately needed modernization initiative at the Office. It’s a bold claim, given that the Library stood by as the Office’s infrastructure became embarrassingly outdated and underfunded over the past twenty years. Before her untimely ouster, Register Pallante provided Congress with a perspective on copyright review that included a detailed list of deficiencies within the Office in need of improvement. Specifically, Pallante cited the diminishing number of fulltime employees and inadequate budget that have made it all but impossible to support growth and development at the Copyright Office:

The Copyright Office budget is consistently in the neighborhood of $50 million, of which $30 million is derived from fees paid by customers for registration and other services. The Library’s overall budget for 2015 is approximately $630 million, inclusive of the Copyright Office. Without taking anything away from the important duties or funding deficiencies in the rest of the Library, the Copyright Office’s resources are inadequate to support the digital economy it serves.

Pallante’s report goes on to discuss the serious information technology (IT) problems facing the Office, and to question the Library’s plan to address IT concerns by exerting more control over the Office’s departments and decisionmaking. The former Register was wise to question a plan that would give more control to an organization that has consistently failed to value or support the Copyright Office and its mission.

Further demonstrating just how out of touch they are with the realities of the current copyright law landscape, an affiliated group of librarians recently professed their faith in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor system that is undoubtedly failing creators, copyright owners, and the public. In comments submitted to the Copyright Office as part of its study on the effectiveness of Section 512 of the DMCA, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) makes the absurd claim that the “safe harbors are working exactly as the stakeholders and Congress intended.” But, just before this assertion, the comments accuse copyright owners of abusing the DMCA’s notice and takedown process, and suggest amendments to the DMCA are necessary “to curtail this abuse.” Not only are the LCA’s comments utterly contradictory, they ignore substantial evidence and testimony from dozens of interested parties that the DMCA needs to be reformed and updated.

As CPIP highlighted in a recent examination of the state of the DMCA, the notice and takedown system has been largely ineffective in managing the ever-increasing amount of piracy, and courts continue to diminish service providers’ responsibility to cooperate with copyright owners to detect and deter infringement. The constant game of whack-a-mole with websites offering infringing content continues, and platforms such as YouTube are teeming with unauthorized works. Artist, creators and copyright owners have loudly voiced their frustration with the current system and called for reforms that better respect their rights. In the face of such obvious evidence of a broken system, to claim the DMCA is working exactly as intended speaks volumes of the librarians’ inability to recognize the reality of the situation.

It’s Time for Change at the Copyright Office

The House Judiciary Committee’s proposal on copyright reform is a response to years of listening “to the views and concerns of stakeholders from all sides of the copyright debate,” and it identifies modernization efforts that address the concerns of these interested parties. Since 2013, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet has conducted 20 copyright review hearings on the current state of copyright law which included testimony from 100 witnesses. In addition to the hearings, Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers brought a copyright listening tour to Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works had the opportunity to tell the Committee directly what changes they believe are needed to ensure U.S. copyright law evolves with the digital age.

The resulting policy proposals reflect a broad acknowledgment by those who participated in the review that the Copyright Office must be updated to keep up with the digital culture it serves. Two of the most important steps in this modernization effort identified by the Committee include requiring the Office to maintain an updated digital database and granting the Office autonomy with respect to the Library of Congress. If Brandon Butler and the signatories of his letter had their way, the Copyright Office would remain under control of an organization that has proven it is unable to help propel the Office into the 21st century. It’s not particularly surprising that librarians would want the Library of Congress to retain control over the Copyright Office, but an overwhelming majority of creators, copyright law experts, and lawmakers recognize that the Office needs to move forward, rather than remain trapped in the past.

Tags copyright, copyright infringement, DMCA, Kevin Madigan, notice and takedown, notice-and-staydown, Section 512, U.S. Copyright Office, YouTube

Digital Single Market Must Protect the Rights of All Authors and Publishers

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date November 9, 2016

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

In 2015, the European Commission unveiled a plan to “create a free and secure digital single market” that would expand and standardize the EU’s digital economy for the benefit of consumers. The strategy was named the Digital Single Market and one of its objectives is to modernize the EU copyright framework to fit the digital age. But while the plan includes the preservation of the rights of creators such as film producers and musicians, publishers of scientific and academic materials are subject to a notable carve out that stands to rob them of the rights in their works. It’s a peculiar exclusion that has provoked both authors and publishers to demand a proposal that will ensure they receive the same treatment as their fellow creators, and it’s critical that the European Commission respond to form a comprehensive policy that upholds the rights of all authors and copyright owners.

The Digital Single Market aims to break down regulatory barriers and unite 28 national markets into a single one that will enhance access to protected works by simplifying and speeding up the process for clearing rights. Though it sounds like a practical goal, the directive plans to do so through an expansion of exceptions to copyright that arbitrarily neglect the rights of some copyright owners. And while there may be a need to update copyright regulations in other industries, publishers and authors believe that the current legislative framework already strikes a sufficient balance that allows them to prosper while giving consumers a choice of works, accessible in a variety of ways at different prices.

In a response to the Digital Single Market regulations, the International Association for Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) notes that Recital 33 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market expressly excludes scientific, technical, and medical publishers from a publisher’s related right. The protection granted by virtue of a new publishers’ related right in Article 11 also does not extend to STM publishers, an oversight STM calls “disappointing, unwarranted and potentially discriminatory.” STM also points out that the vague language of the Directive on Copyright fails to adequately recognize scientific publishers as rightsholders.

The exclusion of these publishers represents a growing conviction that because scientific publications are used for educational and beneficial purposes, they should be subject to a broad fair use policy that allows for their distribution and reproduction free from copyright limitations. It’s a popular yet curious opinion that has been bolstered by digitalization projects like Google Books, which misappropriates the works of countless creators while claiming to build a resource that will benefit the public. But while the proliferation of educational texts is certainly a noble pursuit, the works should not be valued any less than other published materials and creative works that are afforded protections under the new directives.

As the UK Publishers Association makes clear in its position paper on the Digital Single Market, publishers are essential to the “curation, presentation and dissemination of research, knowledge and teaching materials” that ensures present and future generations can learn from and build upon existing works. Publisher developed tools already enable efficient and speedy access to educational materials, and copyright directives that do not provide clear protection for rightsowners could upset the production and availability of these works. The authors and publishers of scientific, technical, and medical texts invest years of research and writing – not to mention money – to produce their work, and depriving them of the right to control and realize a return on their investment could threaten the creation of future works.

The Publishers Association also maintains that while the Digital Single Market should apply to every European Union member, there is still a role for national markets with developed copyright mechanisms. Warning that not all aspects of a market can be homogenized, the Association affirms that different national cultures and languages treat copyright in specific ways, and that well-functioning licensing schemes which can operate across borders already exist. Essential in the development of a Digital Single Market is acknowledgement and respect for the national differences and cultural diversity that are the foundation of the success of the European Union.

The inclusion of well-defined publisher’s related rights in the Digital Single Market directives is crucial to the protection of the rights of academic authors and publishers and to the overall viability of the market for scholarly works. Publishing has embraced the development of new technologies and platforms and already represents one of the success stories of the digital age. Any modifications to the copyright mechanisms that have allowed scientific, technological, and medical scholarship to flourish must clearly guarantee the rights of all authors and publishers, because without them, the future of the European creative culture is at risk.

Tags copyright, copyright infringement, Kevin Madigan

Content Thief Turned Content Creator Rails Against Piracy

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date October 19, 2016

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

Last week, YouTube celebrity (yes, that’s a thing now) Olajide “JJ” Olatunji posted an expletive-filled tirade aimed at those illegally downloading his new movie “Laid in America.” After fans of Olatunji (aka KSI), whose YouTube page has over 14 million subscribers, began notifying him of the film’s availability on a number of illicit torrent sites, he lashed out at the people pirating the film, listing the many legal services offering his work, and explaining – in not so subtle terms – how illegally downloading the film hurts all who contributed to its creation. Some commenters were quick to point out that Olatunji himself used pirated software to create the very videos that made him famous. But while Olatunji readily admitted his outburst was somewhat hypocritical, the dramatic rant speaks to an important aspect of the nature of piracy: The extensive damage caused by the illegal downloading of creative works often isn’t appreciated by those unfamiliar with all that goes into producing them.

Illegally downloading creative content online is all too easy. Unlike stealing a physical product from a store, there’s no need to stealthily conceal the merchandise, avoid security guards, or worry about magnetic security tags. A user can visit any number of torrent sites, simply click on a title, and wait for the work to download. The ease and perceived absence of repercussions for illegally downloading content has been perhaps one of the biggest impediments to quelling the massive amount of piracy that continues to saturate the Internet. Unfortunately, it’s a mindset that seems to be ingrained in a younger generation of Internet users: How could something so easy and consequence-free be bad?

Even if some users realize that sharing pirated copies of music, movies, TV shows, or software is wrong and illegal, they often don’t understand why. A common narrative among those distributing illicit copies of copyrighted works is that movie studios or record labels are corrupt and already making enough money, and that illegally downloading a film or album won’t affect the entertainment business in the long run. Then there’s the exposure myth. It goes something like this: If I share this album with all my friends, the band will gain more fans and the fans will go see them live and buy their t-shirts. It’s a cute idea, but artists can’t live on exposure. Take their word for it here, here, and here.

Others just don’t understand all that goes into making an album, show, or film. They believe that when they pay for a movie, the money goes to an already wealthy actor, musician, or big studio executive. While portions of the proceeds certainly do, the money is also paying the salaries of the hundreds and sometimes thousands of people behind the scenes, without whom the work could never be created. As Olatunji so eloquently clarifies:

I’m not the only one that made this movie. There were hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of people that made this movie. Because it’s not just me you’re f*cking over. You’re f*cking over so many people. You’re f*cking over the producer, director, actors, people who did the music in the film, the cameramen, the lighting crew, the set crew. No, but seriously, it’s f*cking ridiculous.

A seasoned anti-piracy advocate couldn’t have said it any better.

The point is that the entertainment and copyright-based industry is larger and comprised of so many more components and workers than most realize. A 2014 report by the International Intellectual Property Alliance details the contribution copyright industries make to the United States GDP, quantifying the value at over 1.1 trillion dollars. The study found that copyright industries “make up an increasingly large percentage of value added to GDP; create more and better-paying jobs; grow faster than the rest of the U.S. economy; and contribute substantially to U.S. foreign sales and exports, outpacing many industry sectors.”

Illegal distribution of copyrighted works threatens much more than the pocketbooks of successful artists and executives. The fact that proponents of a “free” Internet and those engaged in piracy either don’t realize or refuse to acknowledge the far-reaching effects of stealing creative works is troublesome. The passion of Olatunji’s appeal to his fans and those stealing his movie speaks volumes about the misconceptions surrounding piracy and how a little insight into the creative process can make things so clear. Respect for creative processes shouldn’t be an abstract concept, and if more creators and celebrities lend their voice to educating the public, art and entertainment will flourish.

Tags copyright, copyright infringement

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories