INFO 237 Fall 2008 Syllabus

University of California at Berkeley, Fall 2008 INFO 237 Intellectual Property Law for the Information Industries Thursdays, 3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. (3 units) 202 South Hall

Instructor: Brian W. Carver (bcarver at ischool dot berkeley dot edu) 207C South Hall 510.643.1469 Office Hours: Thursdays 1:30-3:30 and by appointment

Course Websites:

* http://bspace.berkeley.edu * https://wiki.ischool.berkeley.edu/twiki/bin/view/I237f08/WebHome

Grade and Attendance: 24-hour take-home exam (80%) Class participation (20%)

The exam will be designed to be completed in three hours, but you will be permitted 24-hours in which to take it. The exam will be open book and open notes. In fact, you may use any available resource in writing the exam except for another person.

Class participation will consist of being on-call for class discussion for approximately three (3) classes, writing approximately (3) reading summaries on the class discussion board, and making substantive comments on the discussion board and in class. Reading summaries for a given week are due by noon the day before class.

Attendance is expected. If you need to miss all or a portion of a class, I will assume you have a good reason, so you need not detail it for me. If you like, you can simply send me an email letting me know you need to miss, but it is not necessary. If you need to miss a class for which you are on call, then you are responsible for trading days with someone.

Textbook: Lemley, Menell, Merges, & Samuelson, Software and Internet Law ("SAIL") (3d ed. 2006); additional readings available online. (This textbook is also used for INFO 235 Cyberlaw, to be offered Spring 2009).

Prerequisites: None; Students from all levels (graduate/undergraduate) and schools on campus are welcome. However, this is a graduate-level course, so interested undergraduates are encouraged to meet with me before enrolling (or before the drop deadline).

Course Description (from the Course Catalog): This course will provide an overview of the intellectual property laws with which information managers need to be familiar. It will start with a consideration of trade secrecy law that information technology and other firms routinely use to protect commercially valuable information. It will then consider the role that copyright law plays in the legal protection of information products and services. Although patents for many years rarely were available to protect information innovations, patents on such innovations are becoming increasingly common. As a consequence, it is necessary to consider standards of patentability and the scope of protection that patent affords to innovators. Trademark law allows firms to protect words or symbols used to identify their goods or services and to distinguish them from the goods and services of other producers. It offers significant protection to producers of information products and services. Because so many firms license intellectual property rights, some coverage of licensing issues is also important. Much of the course will concern the legal protection of computer software and databases, but it will also explore some intellectual property issues arising in cyberspace.

Course Goals: We will survey trade secret, copyright, trademark, and patent law. Students will, for the most part, be introduced to these topics through reading of judicial opinions, in-class lectures, and discussions. Students will illustrate their understanding of the material through discussions, writing assignments, and the final exam.

Add/Drop Policy: The university has determined that the last day to drop without a "W" is September 26.

Academic Honesty: U.C. Berkeley's Code of Student Conduct prohibits all forms of academic misconduct including but not limited to cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, or facilitating academic dishonesty. See Policy 102.01 at http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/uc100.html and http://students.berkeley.edu/uga/conductiii-vii.asp#V It is my policy to pursue the discipline of such misconduct, including, but not limited to, the entering of a grade of F in the course and a notation (or equivalent) on the student's transcript of the reason for same.

Resources: http://dictionary.law.com/ Judges and professors use a lot of legal jargon. Here's a way to look it up.

Students with disabilities: Students with disabilities who may need accommodations for any sort of disability are invited to make an appointment to see me.

Special Thanks: to those who previously taught this course, Jason Schultz, Aaron Perzanowski, Fred von Lohmann, and Pamela Samuelson, upon whose work this syllabus is based.

SCHEDULE: (latest version here on the wiki)


 * August 28
 * Intro to Trade Secrets, Copyright, Patents, & Trademark Law, statutory and/or constitutional bases for same;
 * Administrative matters (exam, participation, reading court opinions, U.S. courts).


 * September 4 (SAIL 1-32)
 * Orin S. Kerr, How to Read a Legal Opinion
 * Trade Secrets: elements, misappropriation, reverse engineering
 * Rivendell Forest Products v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 824 F. Supp. 961 (D. Colo. 1993).
 * Rivendell Forest Products v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
 * Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc., 297 A.2d 433 (Del. Ch. 1971).
 * Comprehensive Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc., 3 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 1993).
 * Chicago Lock v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982).
 * Trade Secrets: "inevitable disclosure" and non-compete agreements
 * PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995).
 * Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, _ Cal. 4th _, No. S147190, 2008 Cal. LEXIS 9618 (Cal. Aug. 7, 2008).
 * Gene Johnson, The Seattle Times, Judge rules former Microsoft executive Lee can recruit for Google, Sep. 13, 2005.
 * Microsoft Corp. v. Lee, No. 05-2-23561-6 SEA (Wash. Sup. Ct. Sep. 13, 2005).


 * September 11 (SAIL 33-93)


 * Copyright Overview: intro, scope, exclusive rights, remedies
 * 17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 106
 * Copyright Protection for Code: copying of literal and nonliteral elements of code, abstraction-filtration-comparison, copying of functional elements, protocols, screen displays, and user interfaces
 * Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
 * Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995).
 * Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988).
 * Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).


 * September 18 (SAIL 93-125)


 * Copies and Section 117
 * 17 U.S.C. §§ 107, 117
 * Mai Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (Read ONLY paragraphs 54-71).
 * MDY Indus. LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., No. CV-06-2555-PHX-DGC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988, 2008 WL 2757357 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2008).
 * Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983).
 * Fair Use
 * Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).
 * Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).


 * September 25 (SAIL 125-141, 721-732)


 * Copyright Defenses: Reverse engineering and using information location tools as fair use
 * Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (Read copyright portion only).
 * Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003).
 * Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
 * Google Book Search
 * Eric Schmidt, Books of Revelation, The Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2005.
 * Jonathan Band, The Google Library Project: Both Sides of the Story, 2 Plagiary 1 (2006).
 * Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1207 (2007).


 * October 2 (SAIL 141-142, 732-770, 782-788)


 * Copyright Liability for Intermediaries: Internet Service and Access Providers
 * Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
 * Costar Group, Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
 * Contributory and Vicarious Liability for Copyright Infringement
 * A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
 * Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005). (Read Only Sections I, II.A and III.A&B of the Grokster majority opinion).
 * Paracopyright: DMCA Section 1201
 * 17 U.S.C. § 1201
 * Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to be Revised, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 519 (1999).


 * October 9 (SAIL 788-823; 142-150)


 * Paracopyright: DMCA Applications
 * Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
 * Lexmark Int'l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
 * Chamberlain v. Skylink, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
 * Copyright Misuse
 * Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990).


 * October 16 (SAIL 299-319; 324-358)


 * Software Licensing
 * Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
 * Softman Products Company v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
 * Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 1164 (W.D.Wash. 2008).
 * Contract Formation: Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap, and Browsewrap licenses
 * Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
 * ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
 * Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
 * Extra-Legal Enforcement: Self-Help and the Like
 * American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co., 763 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Minn. 1991).
 * Warranties and Disclaimers
 * Neilson Business Equipment Center, Inc. v. Monteleone, 524 A.2d 1172 (Del. 1987).
 * Inter-Mark USA v. Intuit, Inc., No. C-07-04178 JCS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18834 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008).


 * October 23 (SAIL 371-79)


 * Free Software Licensing
 * Brian W. Carver, Share and Share Alike: Understanding and Enforcing Open Source and Free Software Licenses, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 443 (2005).
 * The Artistic License
 * Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
 * Brett Smith, A Quick Guide to GPLv3
 * Creative Commons Licensing
 * Creative Commons, Get Creative video
 * Creative Commons, Wanna Work Together? video
 * "View the Legal Code" for some of the licenses at http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
 * DMCA Safe Harbors
 * 17 U.S.C. § 512
 * Holden Lenz's "Let's Go Crazy" #1 (Direct video link)
 * Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. C07-3783 JF, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66335 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2008).
 * IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., No. C06-03926 HRL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65915 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2008).
 * Guest Speaker: Zahava Levine, Chief Counsel, YouTube.


 * October 30 (631-657; 676-692)


 * Trademark Law: Domain Names and Cybersquatting
 * Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998).
 * Planned Parenthood Federation of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
 * People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
 * Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (Read trademark portion only).
 * Trademark Law: Metatags
 * Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Ent'mt Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
 * Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002).
 * Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).


 * November 6 (692-721; 657-676)


 * Trademark Law: Pop-up and keyword advertising, gripe sites
 * 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).
 * Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
 * Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005).
 * Rescuecom v. Google, 456 F. Supp. 2d 393 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
 * Google v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2007).
 * The Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)
 * 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)
 * browse http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm
 * Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 2001).
 * People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).


 * November 13 (SAIL 151-176; 180-190; 841-853)


 * Patent Law: Is software patentable subject matter? and software as a "Method of Doing Business"
 * 35 U.S.C. §§ 100-104
 * U.S. Patent No. 5,111,391
 * State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Services, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
 * AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
 * Patent Law: Examination and Validity of Software Patents - Novelty and Nonobviousness
 * Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
 * Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
 * British Telecommunications Plc. v. Prodigy, 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).


 * November 20 (In re Bilski)


 * In re Bilksi
 * Ex Parte Bilski, No. 2002-2257 (U.S.P.T.O. Sep. 26, 2006) (opinion of the board of patent appeals and interferences).
 * In Re Bilski, No. 2007-1130 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2008) (en banc order).
 * Brief of Amici Curiae Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge (Apr. 7, 2008).
 * In Re Bilski, No. 2007-1130 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2008) (en banc majority opinion and Mayer dissent).


 * November 27 (THANKSGIVING – NO CLASS)


 * December 4 (Review and Exam Prep)


 * Review and Exam Prep


 * FINAL EXAM
 * 24-Hour Take-Home