One part of the UCITA article I found interesting was the amendment added for libraries. This allows public libraries to accept donations of software even if the shrink-wrap contract indicates otherwise. However, this applies only to "computer software that is transferred in a computer." I found this interesting because the downtown branch of the Cleveland Public Library has a moderately sized collection of software that is definitely not within computers and can be borrowed from the library. If Ohio were put UCITA into law, then this collection would need to be removed. Additionally, without Ohio passing UCITA, the Cleveland Public Library could be affected by it if the licenses of any of the software within its collection specified that Virginia or Maryland law (the two states where UCITA has been passed) governed the software. This is possibly because Ohio is not one of the states that has passed "bomb shelter" legislation. When looking through the software collection, I noticed it was all quite old which I assumed was simply because it was donated. However, after reading this article, I wonder if the software placed in the collection all has license agreements made before Maryland and Virginia passed UCITA.
Reading the patent law section of chapter seven in Russell reminded me of a couple things. First, this section renders a particular point made by Litman invalid. In chapter seven of last week's reading, she makes an argument about copyright by comparing fashion and recipes with the usual subjects of copyright such as movies, music, and books. She starts by stating that if there were no intellectual protection for fashion designers and food creators, then mass-market clothing producers and downscale restaurants would copy the creations of their more expensive counterparts. This would result in no incentive for new designs or recipes so no one would make them. Litman then points out that stakeholders debating copyright typically make this incentive argument when lobbying for strong copyright protection. She means to disprove this claim by stating "of course, we don't give copyright protection to fashions or food. We never have." Although accurate, this statement does not consider patent law. According to Russell, processes such as the steps in a recipe and designs such as "novel and ornamental clothing" or "the exterior of a Samsonite roller luggage" are covered by patents. As a result, fashion designers and food creators are given protection over their works so her argument that these industries run just fine without intellectual property protection is not accurate.
Second, the patent law section reminded me of the movie Flashes of Genius. This movie details the legal battle between Robert Kearns and the Ford Motor Company over Ford stealing the intermittent windshield wiper design that was patented by Kearns. I particularly remember a court scene in which Ford's lawyer was claiming that the patent should not have been granted because Kearns' design simply arranged standard parts. After reading Russell, I realize he was making this claim because patents should only be granted to applications that are "novel, useful, and non-obvious." To show the novel and non-obvious nature of Kearns' design, Kearns' lawyer brought out a copy of The Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and argued that it too was made of arranging standard parts known as words. No one could claim that The Tale of Two Cities is not a novel and non-obvious creation and Kearns eventually won the trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment