13.07.2015 Views

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

law is a complex one.125 Although some have argued that a licenseis merely an agreement <strong>of</strong> the licensor not to sue for any violation<strong>of</strong> its intellectual property rights (and therefore merely supportsthe existing intellectual property regime), modern licensingschemes go much further: licensors use licenses to get more thanthey are granted by intellectual property law by increasing thesanctions against licensees for violation <strong>of</strong> that law; by placinglimitations on the rights granted to licensees by applicableintellectual property law (e.g., on users’ rights in or use <strong>of</strong> theinformation or by avoiding the first sale doctrine);126 and bycreating limitations on use <strong>of</strong> information that is not evenprotected by intellectual property law (e.g., non-copyrightableinformation).127 In addition, to get even more protection than isgiven under applicable intellectual property law and contract law,licensors have sought the technological ability to restrict the use <strong>of</strong>information (both copyrighted and non-copyrighted), legislativeauthorization <strong>of</strong> these technological means,128 and legislativepenalization <strong>of</strong> those who attempt to circumvent thosetechnological means.129 These efforts have been criticized both onthe basis <strong>of</strong> conflicts with intellectual property policy andInternational Marketplace: Are We About to Export Bad Innovation Policy?, 26 Brook. J.Int’l L. 49, 52-53 (2000) [hereinafter Dreyfuss, Marketplace]; Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, DoYou Want to Know a Trade Secret? Licensing Under Article 2B <strong>of</strong> the UniformCommercial Code, 87 Cal. L. Rev. 1193 (1999) [hereinafter Dreyfuss, Trade Secret].125. A full exploration <strong>of</strong> that relationship is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this article. For aglimpse into the problem, see Rice, supra note 11.126. See David A. Rice, Licensing the Use <strong>of</strong> Computer Program Copies and theCopyright Act First Sale Doctrine, 30 Jurimetrics J. 157 (1990); Mark A. Lemley,Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 (1999).127. See generally ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)(involving a license in a non-copyrightable compilation <strong>of</strong> telephone numbers).128. See, e.g., World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, art. 11,Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65, 71; Digital Millennium Copyright Act <strong>of</strong> 1998, 17 U.S.C. §1201 (Supp. IV 1998).129. See, e.g., Council Directive 01/29/EC <strong>of</strong> 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation <strong>of</strong>Certain Aspects <strong>of</strong> Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, 2001 O.J.(L 167) 10, art. 6. [hereinafter European Copyright Directive], available athttp://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_167/l_16720010622en00100019.pdf.The proposed Copyright Directive implementing the WIPO Copyright Treaty contains aprovision prohibiting acts <strong>of</strong> circumvention and also the manufacturing and selling <strong>of</strong>equipment suitable for that purpose. See also Council Directive 91/250/EEC <strong>of</strong> 14 May1991 on the Legal Protection <strong>of</strong> Computer Programs, 1991 O.J. (L 122) 42, art. 7(1)(c)(containing earlier recognition <strong>of</strong> protection <strong>of</strong> technological means) [hereinafterS<strong>of</strong>tware Directive], available at http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/lif/dat/1991/en_391L0250.html.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!