Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

one congressional witness noted: “Tom [Feist] was left with nochoice but to copy listings in order to provide consumers aconvenient, one-book directory covering eleven different serviceareas, because one of the telcos refused to license its listings tohim.”103 Internet based companies argue that database protectionwill result in industry concentration, and will increase the costand diminish the utility of search engines, as web browsers willeither have to maintain their own databases or license them fromcompetitors.104 Technologically oriented companies also predictrising costs associated with world wide web industries due tomonopoly pricing.105 Concern has also been expressed that“granting protection for interface specifications could threatencompetition on the Internet” by concentrating a highly competitiveindustry into a nucleus of dominant firms.106Overly broad database protection could thus inhibit theproduction of transformative databases by raising barriers toentry and costs associated with gathering, verifying andmaintaining compilations.107 While observations and facts havelittle inherent value, the collection and processing of such facts todiscern trends adds economic value to the bare facts. Unprocessedfacts are the most difficult to understand and frequently of littleuse to anyone other than an expert researcher.108 “With everysuccessive level of processing, the data tend to become moreunderstandable and frequently are better documented for the layuser.”109 As a matter of sound public policy, scientists should beencouraged to analyze and refine, rather than simply collect, data;protection should only be accorded to compilations that add valueto the underlying facts by providing a new or creativeorganization. Regard for the value of transformative uses ofdatabases reveals an overlap with copyright protection. As rawhttp://www.house.gov/judiciary/41149.htm.103. Id. (statement of William Hammack on behalf of the Association of DirectoryPublishers), available at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4116.htm.104. See generally id. (discussing the impact of concentrated ownership) (statementof Jonathan Band on behalf of the Online Banking Association), available athttp://www.house.gov/judiciary/41148.htm.105. Id.106. Id.107. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).108. See J. H. Reichman & Paul F. Uhlir, Database Protection at the Crossroads:Recent Developments and Their Impact on Science on Technology, 14 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 793 (1999).109. Id. at 813.