Litigation Attorneys

Napster, the embattled Internet music start-up, today asked a federal judge not to shut down its service, asserting in a court brief that individual Napster users are doing nothing illegal by making personal collections of copyrighted music they download over the Internet.

In the brief filed in federal court in San Francisco, Napster lawyers also argued the service enhances record sales rather than erodes them, an assertion that the record industry strongly disputes and one that could be central to determining the outcome of the case.

On July 26, Chief Judge Marilyn Patel of the Federal District Court here is scheduled to consider whether to grant the recording industry’s request for a preliminary injunction that would shut down Napster pending a trial. The trial is being closely watched by policy makers and businesses because it may give some shape to amorphous copyright law on the Internet, a medium in which data can be swapped easily.

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels in the suit, asserts that millions of Internet users have downloaded Napster’s software and are sharing millions of files of copyrighted music using the MP3 format. Napster users swap files they keep on their home computers.

The recording industry argues that the practice is costing the recording industry irreparable damage in the form of lost sales. It is suing Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, alleging the company’s technology abets in, and profits from, consumers infringing copyrights.

In its brief, Napster’s legal team, led by David Boies, who argued the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft, said people who use Napster are permitted to download files under the federal Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. Mr. Boies said the act permits copying of files for personal, noncommercial use.

More : query.nytimes.com

Back when the US Constitution was still a work in progress, the framers of that document recognized the importance of encouraging innovative thought.

So they gave Congress the power to enact a copyright law to protect the rights of authors long enough for them to profit from their creativity and effort.

But by specifying in the Constitution itself that copyright protection must apply only for “limited times,” the Founding Fathers sought to strike a balance between private profit and the promotion of a vibrant public domain of ideas and creative works.

Wednesday, in a potential landmark case, the US Supreme Court begins examining what the Framers must have meant by the term “limited times,” and whether Congress violated that constitutional mandate in 1998 when all existing copyrights were extended by 20 years.

There is much more at stake in the case than simply how long Disney can retain exclusive use of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, or the number of years the heirs of Dr. Seuss can keep his famous Cat in the Hat off mass-produced T-shirts promoting dubious causes.

In broad terms, what is at issue in Eldred v. Ashcroft is the extent to which the government may grant authors monopolistic power to control the future uses of their music, film, art, literature, and other creations.

More : csmonitor.com

The vexed question of the rights of authors to maintain a property in their literary productions, and to protection of that property against appropriation by other parties without the authors’ consent, has been recently very fully argued and adjudicated in the Superior Court, of this City, in an action by HENRY D. PALMER against ROBERT M. DE WITT, to restrain the publication of a drama called ” Play.”

Source : query.nytimes.com

A Federal judge today dismissed two critical defenses offered by Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard in the software copyright-infringment lawsuit filed against them by Apple Computer Inc.

The ruling could move the now three-year-old case closer to trial. Had the judge accepted the arguments by the Microsoft Corporation and the Hewlett-Packard Company, Apple’s case would have been substantially weakened and might have been tossed out entirely.

But the decision, by Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court here, contained some elements that were not favorable to Apple. Each side claimed victory from the decision but agreed there was still a long way to go before the case was completely resolved. Screen Display Technology

Apple contended that Microsoft’s Windows 2.03 and Hewlett-Packard’s New Wave programs violated copyrights held by Apple. The copyrights cover the screen display that has made Apple’s Macintosh easy to use and has been largely responsible for its success in the marketplace.

The display, called a graphic user interface, allows users to accomplish tasks by pointing at symbols with an arrow on the screen and to display different documents on separate areas of the screen, or “windows.”

Judge Walker rejected a request by Hewlett-Packard to declare Apple’s copyrights invalid because such screen displays were first developed by the Xerox Corporation and were, therefore, not entitled to copyright protection as an original work. He also rejected an argument by Microsoft that portions of its program were covered by a license from Apple and could not be infringed.

“The impact of it is we’re going to go to trial,” said Edward B. Stead, Apple’s vice president and general counsel, who said the company was pleased with the decision.

The ruling, however, does not say that a trial should be held, only that a conference will be held to determine the next phase of the case. No date for the conference has been set. To Consider Specifics

But in another part of the decision, Judge Walker said he would not decide the issue of copyright infringement based on the “total concept and feel” of the Apple software compared to the Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard programs, but by looking at specific features of the programs that might infringe Apple’s program. The ruling supports an argument Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard had made.

William Neukom, Microsoft’s vice president of law and corporate affairs, said, “He agreed with Microsoft’s basic approach that this ought to be done on a function-by-function basis, not some overall concept-and-feel notion.”

The Macintosh user interface is considered a primary reason for Apple’s success, but numerous companies are now imitating it. Microsoft has had huge success in the last year with Windows 3.0, a user interface for computers that uses its MS-DOS operating system. That threatens to cut out Apple’s advantage in the market.

Apple’s lawsuit is against Windows 2.03 and derivative products.

Source : query.nytimes.com

A small Texas software publisher has won a significant court victory sharply limiting large companies’ ability to use copyrights to restrict competition in the computer industry.

The ruling came late Monday in an appeal of a lawsuit brought by Computer Associates International Inc., the nation’s second-largest software company, against Altai Inc., the publisher of a program for mainframe computers. The suit was filed over Altai’s use of a portion of a program for which Computer Associates holds the copyright.

Although the ruling is limited to a dispute over a program used on a small number of large, expensive computers, the appeals court opinion could affect legal battles between leading personal computer forces like the Lotus Development Company, Borland International, Apple Computer, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.

The Altai case has been closely watched by the computer industry. At stake is the issue of whether copyright protection hinders or fosters innovation and a debate over intellectual property protection that has divided the industry in recent years.

Increasingly, the intense competition in the computer industry in the last decade has extended into courtrooms as makers of innovative software programs have sought to limit their competitors’ ability to write programs that are compatible or work in a similar fashion.

Legal experts agreed yesterday that the impact of the court’s ruling would be substantial, but they disagreed about whether it would promote healthy competition.

“This is a breath of fresh air,” said Gervaise Davis 3d, an intellectual property specialist at David & Schroeder, a law firm in Monterey, Calif. “It was violently opposed by a lot of the larger companies who are interested in broadly extending copyright protection to limit competition.”

The Monday ruling, handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, breaks with a 1987 ruling by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia.

That case, known as Whelan v. Jaslow, has served as the basis for many highly visible cases argued over software copyright protection in the last five years. It extended legal protection both to the actual programmer’s coding and to the function, or user interface, of a program.

But in the ruling that was affirmed on Monday, Judge George C. Pratt, of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, had argued that the Whelan decision was both “inadequate and inaccurate.”

More : query.nytimes.com

Samuel L. Clemens has instituted an action in the United States Circuit Court against Butler Brothers, publishers of this city and Chicago. The action is brought through Augustus T. Gurlitz, who is also counsel for Rudyard Kipling, in a suit against R.F. Fenno Co., publishers, of this city, on alleged infringement of trade mark and copyright.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Argument was had yesterday before Judge Donohue, in Supreme Court, Chambers, as to the propriety and justice of continuing the injunction obtained by Messrs. Shook Palmer restraining Adolf Neuendorf, the proprietor of the Germania…

Source : query.nytimes.com

Acting swiftly to capitalize on last week’s Federal court ruling giving copyright protection to the set of computer commands used in its popular 1-2-3 spreadsheet program, the Lotus Development Corporation sued two California software companies yesterday, accusing them of copyright infringement.

Acting swiftly to capitalize on last week’s Federal court ruling giving copyright protection to the set of computer commands used in its popular 1-2-3 spreadsheet program, the Lotus Development Corporation sued two California software companies yesterday, accusing them of copyright infringement.

In his ruling last week, Judge Robert E. Keeton of Federal District Court in Boston wrote that Paperback Software International had infringed the distinctive command structure of the Lotus spreadsheet. Lotus officials said that they had waited for that court ruling before pursuing publishers that offered products with commands similar to those of Lotus 1-2-3. The suits today named Borland International and the Santa Cruz Operation as defendants.

The 1-2-3 spreadsheet, which makes possible both simple budget tasks and complex ”what-if” business models, has become the software industry’s best-selling program since it was introduced in 1983.

”The heart of our suit is that they are not allowed to copy the 1-2-3 menus,” said Thomas M. Lemberg, Lotus’s general counsel. ”It is not a defense to say, ‘Gosh, I have a different appearance.’ ”

Borland executives argued that the Lotus suit was without merit because Borland’s spreadsheet, Quattro Pro, does not mimic the Lotus command set; rather, it has its own distinctive menu system. However it is possible to configure the Quattro program so that it appears with ”1-2-3-compatible menu tree commands.” The user must install special files for this option, which is detailed in the Quattro program guide.

Lotus stock slipped 12.5 cents in Nasdaq trading yesterday, to $34.625 a share, while Borland’s stock tumbled $4.375, to $17, as Nasdaq’s loss leader. Santa Cruz is privately held.

More : query.nytimes.com

In a House subcommittee room today, lawmakers begin the task of trying to adopt centuries-old copyright practices to the age of the Internet. Before them is a compromise bill that would allow artists and authors to sue on-line service companies that carry pirated material.

The bill attempts — how successfully is not yet clear — to settle a long-running dispute that pits the likes of Walt Disney Co. and music and book publishers against such on-line network operators as America Online Inc., Bell Atlantic Corp. and MCI Communications Corp.

It’s among the most difficult legal issues in cyberspace, the ever-growing electronic world of linked computers. The technology makes it possible for millions of people to “post” pirated versions of books, songs or movies for others to copy. But when that happens, whom do you punish? The people who post the material or the operators of the on-line networks on which the posting occurs?

Copyright owners have long argued that it’s impractical to take legal action against everybody who puts a copy of a protected work on a “home page” of the World Wide Web, the Internet’s graphical sector. So it’s logical, they say, to go after the on-line services that give consumers access to the material.

Steve Metalitz, an attorney representing copyright owners, said that “copyright owners always expected they’d have most of the burden” of enforcing their copyrights. “But it’s very important to them to retain the option of going to court” against on-line operators, he said.

The service companies contend it would be impossible for them to monitor and enforce copyrights. Said Bill Burrington, assistant general counsel for America Online: “We just don’t want to be responsible for potentially all 5 million” of his company’s subscribers.

U.S. copyright laws already protect original ideas from being duplicated without the creators’ consent, whether reproduced on the Internet or published in some more traditional form (there are exceptions for “fair use,” such as copying for research or teaching).

And since 1988, people who create copyrighted material no longer need to register their work, or use that familiar “C” with a circle around it, to prove a copyright.

But the explosion of the Internet has tested the practicality of today’s copyright laws. Anyone with a computer and a modem can, for example, download for free sound samples from the BBC television show “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” from a World Wide Web site, or film clips of “Return of the Jedi” from a home page in Denmark.

The legislation up for a vote today would formally extend traditional copyright protections to all electronic transmissions. It would make it illegal to circumvent any technology that serves to protect copyrighted material.

Those matters are largely uncontroversial — they were first proposed in a Clinton administration “white paper” in September. That’s not true of the issue of liability for service companies.

Months of negotiation between the opposing sides in the industry have made some headway toward a compromise. Copyright owners and on-line companies have agreed to a “quick kill” requirement: Owners would have an obligation to notify on-line providers when they become aware of a copyright infringement. Once notified, a provider would have to remove infringing material from its network within a specified period or face liability.

But on the eve of the committee vote there is still disagreement over copyright owners’ right to sue on-line service providers even if they do comply with quick-kill rules. An amendment to be offered today by bill sponsor Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Calif.) would give them this option, but would limit damages to $1,000 for unintentional violations. Intentional violators would face sentences of up to three years in prison or a $250,000 fine.

In a key concession to service providers, the amendment specifies that a company acting as a “mere conduit” for information could not be sued. That satisfies many on-line companies, sources said, though lobbyists representing companies that make software used when tapping into the Web, such as Netscape Communications Corp., want to be included in the definition of “mere conduit.”

Source : washingtonpost.com

The key detail about a digital-copyright agreement announced here on Tuesday was who was not in the room at the time.

The peace accord was designed to show a unified front linking the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and a pair of computer industry groups, thus persuading Congress that new regulations are unnecessary. But absent from the press conference were influential lobbyists who have been far more aggressive–and who show no signs of relenting.

Take the Motion Picture Association of America, which worked with Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., to craft a bill that would require implanting copy-protection technology in PCs and consumer-electronics devices. Though the plan is anathema to Silicon Valley, Hollywood seems convinced that such extreme measures are the only way to prevent movies from becoming as widely traded as MP3 files currently are.

That’s why MPAA President Jack Valenti says he’s not about to sign a truce. “We are not prepared to abandon the option of seeking technical protection measures via the Congress or appropriate regulatory agency,” Valenti said in a statement Tuesday.

Neither is the other side. The Consumer Electronics Association has long-opposed Hollings’ bill, while supporting a different proposal to enhance Americans’ rights to make “fair use” of copyrighted content without running afoul of the law.

CEA President Gary Shapiro is precisely as unyielding as Valenti. “We continue to believe that legislation is required to strike the necessary balance between protecting copyrights and consumers’ fair use rights,” Shapiro said Tuesday.

In other words, the RIAA and its allies at the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) are happy enough with the legal status quo, or at least don’t wish to risk a clash on Capitol Hill with an uncertain outcome. The movie industry, CEA and consumer groups, on the other hand, are willing to risk that confrontation.

Classic compromise
At Tuesday’s press conference, the groups distributed a seven-point list of “policy principles” on which they agree. The groups agreed on more money for greater public awareness of copyright laws, satisfying “consumer expectations,” civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions against pirates, and opposition to “government mandates.”

It represents, in other words, a kind of classic Washington compromise. Tech firms won’t argue for legislation providing Americans with more “fair use” rights, an idea the music industry opposes–and the recording industry won’t call for new government regulations designed to limit piracy.

During Tuesday’s press conference, the three groups took pains to characterize the cease-fire as a historic event, with CSPP Executive Director Ken Kay going so far as to call it a “sea change” in their approach.

More : news.com

Parfums Givenchy U.S.A. is testing a new weapon in the war the luxury-goods industry is waging against diversion — the mysterious migration of their products out of authorized channels of distribution and into discount and off-price stores.

In a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles, Parfums Givenchy contends that Drug Emporium Inc. has violated copyright laws by importing and selling without permission its Amarige perfume — or at least the opulent box in which the fragrance is packaged.

“This is a whole new approach in pursuit of the age-old problem of diversion,” said Robert L. Brady, president of the United States arm of the French cosmetics and fragrance company Parfums Givenchy S.A. “For what I think is the first time, a fragrance company is using the copyright laws instead of the trademark laws to protect the distribution of its products.”

Lawyers who specialize in intellectual-property law agreed, although they said it was an unorthodox use of copyright laws. “This is a novel application of the section, to put it mildly,” said Douglas J. Wood, a lawyer with Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Friedman. “They are using the copyright act to prevent the importation of their products, which would typically be fought under the trademark act.”

The trouble is, trademark law protects luxury-goods companies against the importation of counterfeit goods, not unauthorized distribution of products made themselves. A provision of Federal copyright law, however, prohibits the importing of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner — and has been brought to bear in a case similar to this one.

Last Christmas Eve, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that a Los Angeles record store owner, Edmundo Perez, had violated copyright laws by purchasing recordings manufactured abroad and importing them to the United States without the permission of BMG Music, CBS Inc. and A&M Records Inc., the companies holding the copyrights.

“But for the fact that the copyrighted matter in the BMG case is a recording and Parfums Givenchy’s copyright exists in its box, there’s no difference,” said Eugene A. Ludwig, the fragrance company’s lawyer at Covington & Burling. “The precedent is there.”

Robert E. Lyons, president of Drug Emporium Inc., a Powell, Ohio, operator of a chain of drugstores, said, “Drug Emporium only sells first-class merchandise at fair and low prices to our customers.” He declined to comment further. Diversion ‘Out of Control’

Manufacturers of fine perfumes, cosmetics, watches, accessories and other luxury items fight a constant battle against diversion. Parfums Givenchy, for instance, often buys out inventories of its goods from stores not authorized to sell them.

“On a worldwide basis, diversion has gotten out of control and has hurt the prestige fragrance and cosmetics manufacturers tremendously by eroding their exclusivity,” said John Horvitz of Horvitz & Associates, a cosmetics industry consulting company. “In many cases today, companies that had previously turned a blind eye to diversion are now tightening the screws a bit.”

More : query.nytimes.com

The Xerox Corporation filed suit here today against Apple Computer Inc., accusing it of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers.

The Xerox Corporation filed suit here today against Apple Computer Inc., accusing it of unlawfully using Xerox copyrights in its Macintosh and Lisa computers.

Xerox’s suit, which was filed in Federal District Court, charges Apple with copyright misrepresentation and seeks more than $150 million in royalties and damages.

Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission.

Xerox’s own personal computers were not commercially successful, and for many years the company made no attempt to uphold the copyrights on its graphical interface software. Such software allows a user to select programs and instruct the computer by pointing at symbols on the screen rather than typing in commands.

Apple copyrighted the distinctive ”look and feel” of the Macintosh graphical user interface and has been quick to sue companies it believes have infringed on it. Apple has suits pending against the Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., and the Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, Calif., contending that their software products infringe on the Macintosh copyright. Ideas and Expressions

Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., said it believed Xerox’s complaint was without merit.

”The Xerox complaint seems to confuse the distinction between ideas and expression; copyright protects expression, not ideas,” said Stacey Byrnes, an Apple spokeswoman. ”Apple intends to prove in court that the audio-visual expressions in the Lisa and Macintosh interfaces were wholly original to Apple and duly registered with the copyright office.”

Xerox contends that Apple ”intentionally and purposefully concealed” the derivation of the Lisa and Macintosh software from Xerox software. It said that Apple’s copyrights on Lisa and Macintosh software were invalid and that the company had unjustly received benefits that rightfully belong to Xerox.

”Xerox is not a litigious company,” David T. Kearns, Xerox’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement, ”but we have no other recourse than to seek relief from the court for actions we believe to be unlawful and unfair and, if allowed to continue unchallenged, to be against the interest of Xerox, its shareholders and the computer industry.”

More : query.nytimes.com

The copyright controversy has passed into another phase. First we had a bill which, it was claimed, embodied the views of the publishers; then came one from the authors; this was succeeded by a third, which absurdly …

Source : query.nytimes.com

After more than 100 years, the Senate approved American participation in the Bern copyright treaty today in an action that will help Americans protect their copyrighted material abroad.

After more than 100 years, the Senate approved American participation in the Bern copyright treaty today in an action that will help Americans protect their copyrighted material abroad.

The Senate action was largely a formality since both the Senate and the House of Representatives recently passed legislation to bring United States laws into conformity with the Bern treaty.

According to Ralph Oman, the Register of Copyrights, the act of joining the copyright convention will convey some benefits, such as extending protection to American copyright holders in countries that do not have separate treaties with the United States so that stolen or pirated copies of the works of Americans can no longer be reproduced there with impunity. Procedural Requirements Cut

Also, copyright holders in those countries, which include Egypt, Turkey, Thailand, South Africa and the former French colonies in Africa, will receive copyright protection in the United States.

The increased copyright protections will apply to books, movies and such business products as computer programs and data bases.

The treaty convention also formally removes many of the procedural requirements for obtaining copyrights. For example, a copyright will be regarded as occuring at the moment of creation, so it need not be registered at the Library of Congress. Such protection has been provided for several years, but joining the Bern treaty formally codifies it.

”Copyright will occur when the author lifts the pen from the paper,” said Lewis Flacks, a policy planning adviser to Mr. Oman.

In addition, people will not have to deposit copies of their work with the Library of Congress, a requirement that helped the library become the world’s greatest repository of such material. But Mr. Oman expects people to continue to make such deposits, if only out of pride. The Final 2 Steps

Perhaps the change that will become most quickly apparent to consumers will be that copyrighted itrems will no longer have to display the copyright symbol - c. The Bern treaty, Mr. Oman said, moves away from the formality traditionally favored by United States officials.

Two requirements remain before the United States becomes the 77th nation to join the Bern convention of 1886: The enabling legislation that Congress passed must be signed into law by President Reagan, and a copy of the approved treaty must be sent to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, again by the President. He is expected to take both steps shortly.

While authors and computer-program writers will benefit from today’s action, the writers and directors of films lost their fight to have the United States law include a ”moral rights” provision that would protect their work against changes they do not authorize.

”This Congressional act is a travesty,” said Glenn Gumpel, executive director of the Directors Guild of America.”The United States Congress, in the face of powerful money interests, has flown directly in the face of the requirement of the Bern treaty. This treaty requires each member nation to have, in its domestic law, a moral rights concept which gives to an artist the right to credit and the right to object to any use of his or her works which is ‘prejudicial to his honor or reputation.’ ”

Members of Congress and movie producers and exhibitors who did not want a ”moral rights” provision said movie writers and directors were protected by existing laws covering unfair competition, defamation and privacy rights. That position is disputed by the Directors Guild.

Source : query.nytimes.com

The ubiquitous photocopier has revolutionized the spread of information on college campuses in recent years, allowing professors to improvise “textbooks” by quickly and cheaply compiling collections of materials excerpted from many sources.

But a new Federal copyright ruling is already making it more difficult for professors to assemble these anthologies and more expensive for students to buy them.

“There are professors who would argue that the free flow of information means the flow of free information,” said Joseph S. Alen of the Copyright Clearance Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for copyright holders. “But this kind of anthologizing requires compensation to the copyright holders.”

In a lawsuit brought by eight publishers against Kinko’s Graphics Corporation, Judge Constance Baker Motley of the United States District Court in Manhattan ruled on March 28 that businesses that commercially copy professors’ collections of articles and excerpts without first obtaining permission violate the Copyright Act. Complaint by Publishers

“Making a single copy of an excerpt of a textbook for a professor’s use is one thing,” said Charles Sims, a lawyer for the publishers. “But Kinko’s was making an enormous amount of money off these works without giving any money to the people who created these works.”

As the cost of college textbooks has spiraled, the modest, drably covered anthologies — termed “course packets” or “course resource books” — have proliferated. Kinko’s, a national chain of 560 copy shops based in Ventura, Calif., copies and binds tens of thousands of anthologies each year, selling them to students for $10 to $20 — considerably less than the cost of most college textbooks.

David S. Peterson, a professor of history at the University of Texas, said the anthologies were not only cheaper than textbooks but also offered students a “diversity of points of view” culled from a “broader survey” of writings and documents.

“When my father was in college and took a course on the Renaissance,” Professor Peterson said, “the professor assigned a textbook that taught only the established orthodoxy. Now I can make my own.” Suit Filed Against Kinko’s

But as the popularity of such anthologies has increased, so has concern about the unauthorized photocopying of copyrighted material. While many universities and copy shops routinely seek permission to copy material, others have been flagrantly lax.

More : query.nytimes.com

ByFLECTING the growing uncertainty about the boundaries of copyright law, the chief lawyer for the Copyright Office has asked the agency to re-examine its rules protecting certain computer technology.

ByFLECTING the growing uncertainty about the boundaries of copyright law, the chief lawyer for the Copyright Office has asked the agency to re-examine its rules protecting certain computer technology.

The request, by Dorothy M. Schrader, general counsel for the Copyright Office, coincides with a spate of lawsuits that may determine how the law covers computer software, its ”look and feel” to the person behind the personal computer keyboard and the images that software produces on a video display screen or a printout.

While a company can receive a copyright on a software program or a separate copyright on some computer graphics, the distinctions between the two copyrights and the legal ability to protect keyboard functions and commands remain unclear. * * *

At stake, according to Ms. Schrader and lawyers involved in cases in California, Massachusetts and Georgia, is not only proprietary rights worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but also whether copyright laws will foster or discourage innovation.

”On the one hand, it’s important to give some protection in order to encourage the development of new products,” said Paul Goldstein, professor of intellectual property at Stanford University. ”On the other, the law doesn’t want to discourage competition and innovation by building upon someone else’s discoveries.”

So far, two types of lawsuits have arisen. One poses the question of whether the copyright law protects ”user interface,” the industry’s term that describes how a program looks and feels to the person using the program. The codes of two computer programs may be different, according to two complaints, but there is infringement if the two programs produce similar commands and functions.

A second dispute has arisen over programs that generate comparable screen images on a display terminal even though they are produced by programs made up of different computer languages.

”The question that comes up is the extent to which the program and the screen should be considered separately or part of the same package,” said Morton D. Goldberg, a lawyer at Schwab, Goldberg, Price & Dannay. $ ?

Even though new software programs can usually be copyrighted, sometimes an image that appears on a computer screen or printout cannot by itself be copyrighted. Typically, material that is not protected includes standard forms, such as those used for billing or business ledgers.

More : query.nytimes.com

The gentlemen who are suggesting an amendment to the Copyright bill providing that copyright shall be granted to designs by foreign artists or designers only when the object in which the design is embodied is manufactured exclusively in this country can hardly have realized the precise nature of the condition proposed by them, or its necessary results.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Postmaster-General James has made three propositions to the Canadian postal authorities relating to rates of postage and the exclusion of matter from the mails. The first of these is to allow letters on which one full rate has been paid, but which have not been fully prepaid,to be forwarded …

Source : query.nytimes.com

The success of M. Cazeaux, the Bonapartist candidate in the Hautes-Pyrences has spread consternation among the Septenualists and filled the hearts of the Republicans with rage.

Source : query.nytimes.com

One bright spot shines out from the otherwise gloomy trade figures released monthly by the Commerce Department. While other economic sectors show steady deficits, the makers of American books, computer software, recordings, movies and other copyrighted materials - that is, intellectual property - generated a $1.5 billion trade surplus last year.

One bright spot shines out from the otherwise gloomy trade figures released monthly by the Commerce Department. While other economic sectors show steady deficits, the makers of American books, computer software, recordings, movies and other copyrighted materials - that is, intellectual property - generated a $1.5 billion trade surplus last year.

These producers of copyrighted works sell ingenuity and vision, making the United States the largest exporter of copyrighted works. But this community is threatened by discriminatory trade practices, such as selective copyright law enforcement in other countries, and by outright piracy by foreign competitors. In other words, we can no longer count on good will or fairness in trade relations.

Washington should protect Americans’ creativity, and the profitable products that flow from it, by joining the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the most prominent and effective mechanism for defending copyrights internationally. In order to do that, however, the United States must first change its own copyright laws to adhere to the international standards set by the convention.

For 102 years, the Berne Convention has provided the framework for international copyright relations among nearly all the industrialized and developing countries.

Each Berne signatory is required to extend to works from all other member nations the same copyright rules it applies to its own citizens. The convention also establishes minimum copyright standards that each member must observe.

Although some countries may continue to flout internationally accepted copyright standards, the Berne combination provides a powerful incentive for fair international trade in copyrighted materials.

The United States has not become a member of the convention because of differences between American law and Berne standards. In the last two decades, however, changes in American law and in the Berne standards have narrowed that gap.

More : query.nytimes.com