2010 Copying Fair Use Licensing 
Copyright Lately
MAY 22, 2023
Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market. Andy Warhol Foundation v.
Patently-O
JANUARY 4, 2024
2024) A recent copyright infringement lawsuit filed by small Boston intellectual property boutique Hsuanyeh Law Group PC (HLG) against international giant Winston & Strawn LLP focuses a dividing line that can highlight when copying the work of another firm is permissible. Winston & Strawn , 23-cv-11193 (S.D.N.Y.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IPilogue
OCTOBER 26, 2021
It started out in 2010 when Oracle sued Google for copying the application programming interfaces (APIs) of Java, a programming language developed and licensed by Sun Microsystems and later acquired by Oracle, in Google’s development of the Android operating system. Oracle appealed successfully.
Intepat
APRIL 23, 2021
Android even though they developed their own run time environment independent of Java, used 37 API calls that are similar to Java API and literally copied 11,500 lines of code deemed central to Java. The jury, in this case, held that the re-implementation of 37 Java APIs was protected by fair use.
JIPL Online
MARCH 15, 2021
3] The suit alleged that Sherlock Holmes’ character traits of warmth and empathy were copied and not yet in the public domain, as these traits only developed in later works that are still protected by copyright. [4] 14] Before lawyers got involved, pressure from the photographer resulted in the granting of a licensing fee. [15]
SpicyIP
DECEMBER 20, 2023
Notably, Monsanto’s matter had several layers including the State Governments seeking to regulate IP licensing fees, and the Indian seed companies who previously licensed technology from Monsanto, refusing to pay royalties to Monsanto. To get an overall picture, see Prashant’s post “ The Rs. Sounds “Jhakaas!”
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
OCTOBER 19, 2021
Nevertheless, because adware often provided poor consumer experiences, adware largely fizzled out by 2010. The court approaches this case like it’s an adware case, but the court never once uses the term. We need to know more about this license. WhenU concluded that copyright was a dead-end. 1-800 Contacts v. Intel Corp.,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
92 
Let's personalize your content