I was invited to post a response on the Opinio Juris international law blog to an article written by Robert C. Bird (U. Connecticut) and Peggy Chaudhry (Villanova). Their article, ” Pharmaceuticals and the European Union: Managing Gray Markets in an Uncertain Legal Environment” was published by the Virginia Journal of International Law.
The article is very good, and they are offered an opportunity to respond to my questions and comments. To view the discussion, please click here.
J.D. Salinger, author of the classic Catcher in the Rye novel filed a lawsuit in Manhattan alleging that the authors of a sequel to his acclaimed novel have committed copyright infringement. In the complaint, Mr. Salinger alleges that the unauthorized sequel involves an elderly Holden Caulfield who leaves a retirement home to spend a few days in New York City.
Salinger asserts that his copyright to the first work grants him the exclusive right to authorize any derivative works of that prior and seminal work of fiction. The complaint alleges that the new sequel is an unauthorized derivative, and Mr. Salinger requests the court to grant an injunction against its publication, sale and distribution.
Given the nature of Mr. Salinger’s copyright, and if the injunction is granted, many of us will probably never know how phony or lousy that sequel may have really been.
To read the full complaint click here.
It would be an understatement to say that Michael Morgan dislikes Goldman Sachs. Mr. Morgan expresses his vitriol against the large investment bank in not-so-subtle terms. Mr. Morgan writes on his blog: “Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.”
His explicit contempt, however, is not what drew the ire of Goldman Sachs and its attorneys. Instead, it’s the domain name that Mr. Morgan reserved to express his views. The domain name for Mr. Morgan’s blog is goldmansachs666.com. As Mr. Morgan writes, his blog’s purpose is to serve as “an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis.“
On April 8, 2009 Goldman Sachs’ attorneys fired-off a cease and desist letter to Mr. Morgan. The letter states “your use of the mark Goldman Sachs violates several of Goldman Sachs’ intellectual property rights, constitutes an act of trademark infringement, unfair competition and implies a relationship and misrepresents commercial activity and/or an affiliation between you and Goldman Sachs which does not exist and additionally creates confusion in the marketplace.”
Mr. Morgan had several options at that point. He could have ceased using the domain name as requested by the letter. He could have ignored it and risked further legal actions. Or, sue Goldman Sachs and petition a court to uphold his use of the domain name as a legal use, and not a trademark infringement as claimed by Goldman Sachs. Mr. Morgan chose this last option, and has filed a complaint in the United States District Court – South Florida. Click here to read the complaint.
A student in my Entrepreneurship class recently made me aware of the site: “Let me Google that for you” .com (LMGTFY).
As the name of LMGTFY implies, the site shows you how to search Google if you follow the simple steps listed on the site. I showed the website in class, and one student immediately thought it was a joke. “That’s not so unique” was one comment. “Why not get rid of the middleman and go straight to Google?” another student asked.
As it turns out, the website is dedicated “to all those people that find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than google it for themselves.” So, if you receive an annoying question, rather than ignore the person or say something nasty, you can send them to LMGTFY and hope they get the message not to bother you again.
The website raises some intellectual property issues, however. I asked the class if they would be willing to invest in this company. The site apparently is trying to raise advertising revenues and claims to have a “steady stream of traffic made up primarily of affluent 30-somethings.” They also claim to have received 1.25 million visitors in February. One student said he would not invest because Google would be able to “shut them down fairly quickly”.
Under what grounds? First, there is the possible trademark issue since the Google trademark and logo are used on the site. Also, the Google website is secured under copyright.
Techdirt does a nice job describing some of the problems currently facing artists and copyright. Basically, how can you artistically innovate without borrowing?
This is in response to a copyright-related story that recently popped up dealing with the iconic blue, white and red Obama campaign posters. As it turns out, the original image was a photograph taken by an Associated Press freelance photographer. The image was downloaded and altered by someone else to generate the iconic poster image. All this was done without getting the photographer or the A.P.’s permission, and in theory violating their copyright.
professororozco.com 