Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Bow to Innovation: The Supreme Court's Decision in MGM v. Grokster
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2005) is noteworthy for the Court's decision to sidestep modifying the standard that the Court set in the Sony case in 1984 as to when a product distributor can be liable for infringing uses of its product. Although the Supreme Court was faced with compelling arguments from copyright owners and the technology industry alike both for and against modifying the standard in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), it ultimately found that Grokster and its co-defendant StreamCast could be liable for infringing downloads, not because they distributed a product that was used to infringe copyrights, but because they took the additional step of actively inducing their users to download copyrighted material. In so doing, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether it was appropriate that a mere distributor of a product “capable of substantial noninfringing use” should avoid liability even when its product is being used for massive copyright infringement.
Grokster and StreamCast had prevailed at both the district court level, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003), and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004), by relying on the Sony standard. The Supreme Court derived that standard in 1984 from Section 271(c) of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. '271(c)), which exempts from liability one who distributes a “staple article of commerce” if the product is used to infringe. Applying that same standard to copyright law, the Court held that Sony was not liable for infringing uses because the Betamax recorder was capable of being used for noninfringing “time shifting,” which the Court found to be a fair use.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.