 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Open Economies - US Supreme court agrees to hear case; gain for those promoting more open intellectual property laws [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] US Supreme court agrees to hear case; gain for those promoting more open intellectual property laws
Friends, A pivotal gain was won yesterday for those who favor more open intellectual property laws that balance the needs of the community for open access, with those of property holders. The US Supreme court has agreed to hear a case against the extension of the US copyright act, a case that was brought by Larry Lessig of Stanford, who is a close associate of those of us here at the Berkman Center, and well-known to many of you. Here is a link and excerpts from the NY Times piece this morning. Regards, Jim http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/national/20RIGH.html New York Times, February 20, 2002 Justices to Review Copyright Extension By LINDA GREENHOUSE ASHINGTON, Feb. 19 - The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether the 1998 law that extended the duration of existing copyrights by 20 years was constitutional. The court's action took the world of copyright holders and users by surprise and held the potential of producing the most important copyright case in decades. A challenge to the law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which many had regarded as a fanciful academic exercise, suddenly looked very different once the Supreme Court declared its interest. The issue is whether the Constitution's grant of authority to Congress to issue copyrights and patents "for limited times" to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" contains any real limitation on how that power is to be exercised. That question has implications for future cases as the battle over the ownership of intellectual property focuses on the Internet. As a practical matter, the consequences could be enormous, both for those with stakes in copyrights that are running out and for the growing community of people - represented by the plaintiffs in this case - trying to use the Internet to expand the boundaries of the public domain. If the 20- year extension was unconstitutional, early Mickey Mouse depictions would no longer belong exclusively to the Walt Disney Company - although Disney would retain trademark protection for the character. [As a matter of political process, this suit will now open up the debate, and increase the awareness of not only business and government but civil society. See the following excerpt from the NY Times story.] The plaintiffs' Supreme Court appeal, filed by Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, garnered support from concerned groups including the American Library Association and other libraries. Now that the court has agreed to hear the case, with arguments to be held in the fall, briefs will undoubtedly pour into the court from copyright holders as well as from public domain advocates. Dr. James F. Moore Senior Fellow Harvard Law School Open Economies Project Berkman Center for Internet and Society Pound Hall 511 1563 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 www.openeconomies.org jmoore@cyber.law.harvard.edu Chairman GeoPartners Ventures 214 Lincoln Street Allston, MA 02134 www.geopartners.com jmoore@geopartners.com
|
