![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Friday, July 02, 2004 11:06:44 AM
edit2: orda - yeah.
Softee would sue first and ask questions later. Literally as many as 1000 suits in some years for infringement that usually ended up in settlement (leaving many defendants bankrupt).
Misuse is fast proving to be a solid defense that can vitiate the viability of the underlying IP, deeming it unenforceable during any period where it is misused (not just against the adverse parties, but deemed unenforceable as a whole).
it's sort of an "unclean hands" approach. it has huge ramifications for a firm like MSFT, and some notable legal scholars (e.g., Judge Posner in Chicago using an economics perspective) have substantially advanced the theory in recent years and posited that the Constitutionally guaranteed limited monopoly was not designed nor intended to bring harm to others, but rather to advance the useful arts & sciences.
so when a company improperly uses its IP for example, to squash competition in a manner which violates antitrust law, they run the risk of having their IP judicially declared unenforceable during any such period of misuse.
there's also a recent case (think it's RIAA v. sciamatta SP? 2d Cir i think) where the Def is tying a RICO theory to misuse to defend against a napster-based infringement claim. the case is still in the early stages, but if that theory succeeds, companies like MSFT will ultimately become much more cooperative IMO. There's also a case involving Lexmark on appeal (in the 6th Cir i think) which could spread the doctrine cross-country if it receives an appellate imprimatur.
it's a positive development for companies like Wave & given Wave's shaky financial position & presumed inability to properly pursue any IP litigation, maybe even a white knight of sorts.
100% JMO.
edit: here's a string cite for anyone interested:
leading cases:
Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, 293 F.3d 1014 (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Ty, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir.2003); Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2367; Alcatel U.S.A., Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, ("DSC I") 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996)
cases by circuits:
First Circuit -- Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). Second Circuit -- CBS, Inc. v. ASCAP, 607 F.2d 543, 544-45 (2d Cir. 1979); Reliability Research Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 68, 69-70 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Coleman v. ESPN, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 290, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1537-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Services, 746 F. Supp. 320, 327-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Third Circuit -- Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Moor-Law, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 758, 772-73 (D. Del. 1981), aff'd, 691 F.2d 490 (3d Cir. 1982); Foreign Car Parts, Inc. v. Auto World, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 977, 979 (M.D. Pa. 1973). Fourth Circuit -- PRC Realty Systems, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Realtors, Nos. 91-1125, 91-1143, 1992 WL 183682 (4th Cir., August 4, 1992); Service & Training, Inc. v. Data General Corp., 963 F.2d 680, 690 (4th Cir. 1992); Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990); Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, et al. v. MAI Systems Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Va. 1994). Fifth Circuit -- Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 861-65 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1463, 1465-66 (N.D. Tex. 1992). Sixth Circuit -- National Football League v. Rondor, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 1160, 1168 (N.D. Ohio 1993); Budish v. Gordon, 784 F. Supp. 1320, 1336-37 (N.D. Ohio 1992); Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. Co., CV 02-571-KSF, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3734 (E.D. KY. Feb 27, 2003). Seventh Circuit -- qad., Inc. v. ALN Assoc's, Inc., 974 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1992); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques, Inc., 949 F.2d 1482 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1942 (1992); Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1199-1200 (7th Cir. 1987); F.E.L. Publications, Ltd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 214 U.S.P.Q. 409, 1982-1 Trade Cases ¶ 64,632, 1982 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 25,376 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982). Eighth Circuit -- Hill v. Xyquad, Inc. 939 F.2d 627, 631-32 (8th Cir. 1991); United Telephone Company v. Johnson Publishing Co., 855 F.2d 604, 610-12 (8th Cir. 1988). Ninth Circuit -- Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (applying law of the 9th Circuit); Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1482 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'd, Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990); Supermarket of Homes, Inc. v. San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, 786 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., No. C 92 1539-FMS, 1994 WL 446049 (N.D. Cal. March 18, 1994); LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., No. C-92-4410-VRW (ENE), 1993 WL 760205 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 1993); Microsoft Corp. v. BEC Computer Co., 818 F. Supp. 1313, 1316-17 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 1392, 1399 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, 562 F. Supp. 775, 782 (C.D. Cal. 1983), aff'd, 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984). Tenth Circuit -- Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Colorado Magnetics, Inc., 497 F.2d 285, 290-91 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975); Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 214, 219-220 (D. Kan. 1987), aff'd, 916 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Eleventh Circuit -- BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing Co., 933 F.2d 952, 961 (11th Cir. 1991), vacated, 977 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 943 (1994); Mastercraft Fabrics Corp. v. Dickson Elberton Mills Inc., 821 F. Supp. 1503, 1511 (M.D. Ga. 1993); Georgia Television Company v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 1991-2 Trade Cases ¶ 69, 516, 1991 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 26, 765, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1372 (N.D. Ga. 1991). D.C. Circuit -- National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 614, 651-53 (D.D.C. 1991).
edit2: orda -- very much so. was involved in just such a case last year that never made it to trial.
Softee would sue first and ask questions later. Literally as many as 1000 suits in some years for infringement that usually ended up in settlement (leaving many defendants bankrupt).
Misuse is fast proving to be a solid defense that can vitiate the viability of the underlying IP, deeming it unenforceable during any period where it is misused (not just against the adverse parties, but deemed unenforceable as a whole).
it's sort of an "unclean hands" approach. it has huge ramifications for a firm like MSFT, and some notable legal scholars (e.g., Judge Posner in Chicago using an economics perspective) have substantially advanced the theory in recent years and posited that the Constitutionally guaranteed limited monopoly was not designed nor intended to bring harm to others, but rather to advance the useful arts & sciences.
so when a company improperly uses its IP for example, to squash competition in a manner which violates antitrust law, they run the risk of having their IP judicially declared unenforceable during any such period of misuse.
there's also a recent case (think it's RIAA v. sciamatta SP? 2d Cir i think) where the Def is tying a RICO theory to misuse to defend against a napster-based infringement claim. the case is still in the early stages, but if that theory succeeds, companies like MSFT will ultimately become much more cooperative IMO. There's also a case involving Lexmark on appeal (in the 6th Cir i think) which could spread the doctrine cross-country if it receives an appellate imprimatur.
it's a positive development for companies like Wave & given Wave's shaky financial position & presumed inability to properly pursue any IP litigation, maybe even a white knight of sorts.
100% JMO.
edit: here's a string cite for anyone interested:
leading cases:
Scheiber v. Dolby Laboratories, 293 F.3d 1014 (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Ty, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., (Posner, J., 7th Cir. 2002); Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir.2003); Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2367; Alcatel U.S.A., Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, ("DSC I") 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996)
cases by circuits:
First Circuit -- Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). Second Circuit -- CBS, Inc. v. ASCAP, 607 F.2d 543, 544-45 (2d Cir. 1979); Reliability Research Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 68, 69-70 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Coleman v. ESPN, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 290, 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1537-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Services, 746 F. Supp. 320, 327-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Third Circuit -- Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Moor-Law, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 758, 772-73 (D. Del. 1981), aff'd, 691 F.2d 490 (3d Cir. 1982); Foreign Car Parts, Inc. v. Auto World, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 977, 979 (M.D. Pa. 1973). Fourth Circuit -- PRC Realty Systems, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Realtors, Nos. 91-1125, 91-1143, 1992 WL 183682 (4th Cir., August 4, 1992); Service & Training, Inc. v. Data General Corp., 963 F.2d 680, 690 (4th Cir. 1992); Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990); Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, et al. v. MAI Systems Corp., 845 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Va. 1994). Fifth Circuit -- Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 861-65 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1463, 1465-66 (N.D. Tex. 1992). Sixth Circuit -- National Football League v. Rondor, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 1160, 1168 (N.D. Ohio 1993); Budish v. Gordon, 784 F. Supp. 1320, 1336-37 (N.D. Ohio 1992); Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. Co., CV 02-571-KSF, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3734 (E.D. KY. Feb 27, 2003). Seventh Circuit -- qad., Inc. v. ALN Assoc's, Inc., 974 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1992); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques, Inc., 949 F.2d 1482 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1942 (1992); Saturday Evening Post Co. v. Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1199-1200 (7th Cir. 1987); F.E.L. Publications, Ltd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 214 U.S.P.Q. 409, 1982-1 Trade Cases ¶ 64,632, 1982 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 25,376 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 859 (1982). Eighth Circuit -- Hill v. Xyquad, Inc. 939 F.2d 627, 631-32 (8th Cir. 1991); United Telephone Company v. Johnson Publishing Co., 855 F.2d 604, 610-12 (8th Cir. 1988). Ninth Circuit -- Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (applying law of the 9th Circuit); Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465, 1482 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'd, Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990); Supermarket of Homes, Inc. v. San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors, 786 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., No. C 92 1539-FMS, 1994 WL 446049 (N.D. Cal. March 18, 1994); LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., No. C-92-4410-VRW (ENE), 1993 WL 760205 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 1993); Microsoft Corp. v. BEC Computer Co., 818 F. Supp. 1313, 1316-17 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 1392, 1399 (N.D. Cal.), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, 562 F. Supp. 775, 782 (C.D. Cal. 1983), aff'd, 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984). Tenth Circuit -- Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Colorado Magnetics, Inc., 497 F.2d 285, 290-91 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975); Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 214, 219-220 (D. Kan. 1987), aff'd, 916 F.2d 718 (10th Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Eleventh Circuit -- BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing Co., 933 F.2d 952, 961 (11th Cir. 1991), vacated, 977 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 943 (1994); Mastercraft Fabrics Corp. v. Dickson Elberton Mills Inc., 821 F. Supp. 1503, 1511 (M.D. Ga. 1993); Georgia Television Company v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 1991-2 Trade Cases ¶ 69, 516, 1991 Copr. L. Dec. ¶ 26, 765, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1372 (N.D. Ga. 1991). D.C. Circuit -- National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 614, 651-53 (D.D.C. 1991).
edit2: orda -- very much so. was involved in just such a case last year that never made it to trial.
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.