Related posts:

1. Bilski at the Supreme Court Today Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Bilski case....
2. Still Waiting on Bilski The new story about the Bilski case is how long...
3. No Bilski Decision from SCOTUS Yet At Technically Legal we’re all waiting with bated breath for...

Back in March, a Federal district court breathed new life into the dying hot news doctrine. The hot news doctrine grants a kind of copyright over facts for a short period of time, in order to reward the person who first reported those facts. The problem is that the doctrine was developed decades ago, and isn’t a good fit for modern technology.

The district court judge’s ruling was appealed, and TechDirt is reporting that Google and Twitter have argued that the doctrine is arbitrary and out moded. It’s not terribly surprising that content providers are trying to ressurect this doctrine, but courts will hopefully do the right thing, and put it to rest.

Related posts:

1. Twitter May Sell Trademarked Terms to Competitors for Ads Twitter’s Promoted Tweets program is still in the planning stages,...
2. Twitter Sued For Patent Infringement This week Twitter was sued for patent infringement. The gist...
3. Technically Legal Podcast: Episode 12 RealDVD case, Microsoft and the i4i Patent, and Copying Websites....

Christina Mulligan, in a guest post on Balkinization, talks about the lack of copyright discussion on the hit TV show Glee. Mind you, this is not a discussion of the rights involved with the making of the show, which has been done legally by negotiating the rights to make cover versions. Rather, in the fictional reality within the TV show, would the RIAA or ASCAP file a lawsuit against the Glee club for their shot-for-shot recreations of copyrighted music videos and their cover versions and mashups of unlicensed songs? And would the plucky teenagers be dragged into a courtroom, only to have their case dismissed by the judge, guest star Nathan Fillion?

There’s a range of arguably infringing activities going on in the Glee club. The worst is probably the music videos they create outside of the Glee club (see Glee’s version of Single Ladies compared to Beyonce’s original). These use the original recordings of the songs, which Mulligan points out has been troublesome in the past, even for amateur non-commercial videos. Then there’s the covers of songs (for example, “Don’t Rain on My Parade”) that are reproduced without rearrangement (i.e. are performed with roughly the same notes and instruments/voices as the original), and, therefore is, arguably, not a derivative work. Next would be the derivative arrangements of the songs (“Don’t Stop Believing”, “Hello, Goodbye”, both of which have been arranged for the Glee club with extra vocal harmony), most of which constitute public performances. Lastly, there are the songs that are clearly not public performances (“Can’t Fight This Feeling”, sung alone in the shower, “Like a Virgin”, a fantasy sequence), which the RIAA probably would not pursue in court. I think there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy in your shower, and failing that, in your imagination.

Despite the glaring instances of infringement in the Glee club, they could still argue their actions constitute fair uses of the copyrighted works. The strongest argument supporting this is that these songs are used for nonprofit educational use, which is one of several factors considered under the fair use doctrine in the US Copyright Act. The fair use doctrine also takes into account whether an allegedly infringing activity was use for commercial purposes and what affect the use has on the market for the copyrighted work. This is why the Glee club found themselves trouble in the episode “Mattress” for performing “Jump” in a mattress commercial, because they received compensation for their performance.

Ultimately, most of the songs performed by the Glee club fall into a nebulous gray area, and it would be up to a judge to determine if the use was a fair use. It really could go either way. On the one hand, the RIAA and ASCAP have been known to prosecute for much less. On the other hand, there are real life groups like The PS22 Chorus which are essentially doing the same thing and presumably not being prosecuted.

Related posts:

1. One Way You’re Not Going to Infringe Copyright The EFF is reporting that a court has ruled that...
2. Men At Work Sued for Copyright Infringement The 80s band Men at Work were sued in Australia...
3. Google and Twitter Weigh In on Hot News It seems like we just talked about the hot news...

It has been widely reported that the case is finally over.

It isn’t over. After summary judgment was granted for Novell (throwing SCOs claims out), SCO appealed. The appeals court said that SCO should get to present its claims to a jury. SCO did just that and lost. But, by filing the post-verdict motions, SCO has set itself up to appeal the judge’s denials of those motions. SCO has only a small chance of success on appeal, but they are likely going to argue that no reasonable jury could have found in favor of Novell, and that various rulings made by the judge at trial created error that should either reverse the verdict, or get SCO a new trial.

We’ll continue to reluctantly report on this until we’re sure it’s finally dead, an ex-lawsuit, pushing up the daisies.

Related posts:

1. SCO v. Novell, Finally Over? The jury in the SCO v. Novell suit returned a...
2. Tenenbaum Trial: Directed Verdict Granted Judge Nancy Gertner granted a motion for directed verdict (also...
3. Death to MS Word?: Microsoft Loses i4i Appeal in Patent Infringement Case On December 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit ruled all issues...

The average wait is about ninety days, with a median of seventy-seven. The nearest competitor to Bilski is KSR v. Teleflex, which totally re-wrote obviousness law, or, depending on how you look at it, brought the Federal Circuit back in line with what it always should have been. KSR took 153 days, meanwhile, Bilski will be a minimum of 210 days before its release. The next day opinions will be released is the 7th, with the last day to release opinions being the 28th of June. There is always a chance, albeit a slim one, that Bilski will be re-argued next term, if the Justices can’t come to a decision, or think one issue wasn’t sufficiently addressed the first time around.

So far no one is really revising what they think the outcome will be based on the delay, but delays in releasing cases generally indicates that the court is fragmented on how they want to rule. This would be a stark departure from recent patent cases taken by the Supreme Court, which have been decided unanimously.

Related posts:

1. No Bilski Decision from SCOTUS Yet At Technically Legal we’re all waiting with bated breath for...
2. Bilski: Business Method Patent Invalid Today the Supreme Court handed down its long awaited opinion...
3. Bilski at the Supreme Court Today Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Bilski case....

The FSF press release also indicates that they’re in talks with the application developer for violating the GPL, but they’re also implying that Apple is somehow at fault. The FSF’s theory is that Apple, by distributing this code in a non-GPL-compliant way, is also violating the GPL.

This would probably fail under a contract theory of the GPL, because there’s no evidence that Apple knew the underlying code was subject to the GPL. However, Apple cannot claim ignorance to insulate themselves from liability for copyright infringement. The safeharbor provisions of the DMCA would provide Apple protection from liability on that front, which explains why they took the application off the store as soon as they had knowledge of the infringing nature of the product.

Update: Another good reason why Apple wouldn’t be liable for breach of contract, is that they were not a party to the contract. Unless the game had the GPL as a license agreement (unlikely), and the iPhone App approval agent clicked “OK,” the FSF would have a tough time proving that Apple was party to the GPL here. Even if all of that were true, it wouldn’t be an open and shut case.

Related posts:

1. Episode 54: Apple Sandwich Apple revises their advertising policy, Traffic Cam Gripe Site, New...
2. Apple Sues HTC Over iPhone Patents This is still breaking, so we’ll have more coverage as...
3. NY Post: Apple May Be Facing Antitrust Scrutiny The New York Post, of all news outlets, is reporting...

The ruling may entirely change the doctrinal scope of  “patentable methods or processes”.  Although the Bilski case deals with controversial business method patents, the doctrines at issues will affect a wide range of other patents, including the ability to patent computer software.   If you haven’t been following the case, the issues stem from the Federal Circuit’s recent adoption of the “machine or transformation test” which was developed in the Bilski case in 2008.

We are now in the pipeline for Supreme Court decisions.   The Supreme Court is in session from early October until the end of June, across a calendar year (i.e., October 2009 – June 2010).  Oral arguments for Bilski were heard before the Supreme Court last November and a decision is expected any week now.  According to the SCOTUS Blog’s calendar for May and June, which tracks events at the D.C.-based Court, rulings are expected to be released on the following Mondays:

May 17 & 24th

June 7, 14, 21, & 28th

Assuming this time line is correct, we are anticipating the Bilski ruling on one of those days.  Of course,  we’ll provide links, coverage and analysis on our blog and podcast as soon as the ruling is released.  Stay tuned until then.

Related posts:

1. Still Waiting on Bilski The new story about the Bilski case is how long...
2. Bilski at the Supreme Court Today Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Bilski case....
3. Myriad Genetics to Appeal S.D.N.Y. Ruling Yesterday, Myriad Genetics expressed their disappointment and announced their plans...

Over the last several months, I’ve been working on a research project at the Berkman Center that focuses on the genomics and proteomics sectors of the biotechnology industry.  A large portion of this research is directed at genetic and genomic diagnostic testing.  These days, it’s an extraordinarily interesting field in terms of intellectual property law and proposed regulatory actions like this.  I found this to be a good opportunity to share some of my research findings and why the FDA would be interested in implementing more restrictive regulations for over-the-counter genetic testing services.

First, the FDA does regulate certain aspects of genetic and genomic diagnostic testing.  Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has the authority to regulate “medical devices,” including “instrument[s], apparatus[es]  . . .  [and] in vitro reagent[s]” that are “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions.” (see 21 U.S.C. § 321(h)).  The FDA’s regulations, further include  “in vitro reagent diagnostic products” as “medical devices.” (see 21 C.F.R. § 809.3).  “Class III” medical devices are subject to very stringent regulation and require approval before they can be sold, but “Class I and Class II” do not require any pre-market approvals prior to sale, but must meet certain standards for quality assurance purposes. (21 C.F.R. § 814).  In short, the FDA can step in and require certain accuracy standards for tests that fall within this category.

Nonetheless, some laboratories have been taking advantage of an apparent gap in FDA regulation based on distinctions between genetic testing “kits” and “services.”   Device manufacturers of  genetic”testing kits” sell a set of reagents and instructions for collecting a sample specimen.  These usually qualify as either Class II or Class III medical devices and may require pre-market approval by the FDA.  However, sometimes laboratories develop their own “in-house” or “home brew” tests which are known in industry-speak as “laboratory developed tests” or “LDTs.”  Instead of including the necessary reagents in a “kit”, laboratories are obtaining the reagents from external resellers or manufacturing entities.  Although the purchase of reagents is still subject to FDA regulation, once separated from the LDT, the LDT is no longer regulated as a diagnostic medical device.  The distinction here is that laboratories believe that  LDTs are testing services, not medical devices, and therefore do not need to meet  pre-market approval or quality assurances requirements under FDA regulations.  Interestingly, the FDA’s position is that they can regulate LDTs just like medical devices.  It seems likely that further regulatory clarification will be needed down the road to establish clear standards for LDTs if the FDA continues to push regulatory standards on LDT providers.

The FDA is not the only regulatory agency in the room, either.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (or “CMS”) have some regulatory authority over laboratory testing though the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 (or “CLIA”).  CLIA basically sets up a regulatory scheme that requires laboratories to meet certain standards of quality control and proficiency of testing, which vary depending on the complexity of specific testing conducted on site.  LDTs, which are otherwise not covered by as “medical devices” by the FDA, are covered under CLIA.  However, because certain genetic LDTs do not have established proficiency standards, CLIA only requires the laboratories to establish their own procedures to verify the accuracy of testing results.  It’s a bit like letting the inmates run the asylum.

I don’t mean to say that LDTs are categorically less accurate than the “testing kits” that fall under FDA regulation.  However, the FDA is clearly concerned with closing some potential loopholes that might give rise to questionable product marketing practices.  And, really, we’re not just talking about products on the shelf at Walgreens.  A simple Google search yields a swath of websites that offer genetic testing services for sale to the public.

Finally, another vector of concern beyond testing “accuracy” is how results are ultimately reported back to consumers.  Many genetic tests are marketed as a services that provide health risk assessments based on genetic sequencing and correlating results with propensities to develop certain diseases.  It’s not the same as a diagnosis by a physician or other medical professional.  Undoubtedly, the FDA is interested in ensuring that marketers are explaining the limitations of certain genetic testing as well as how test results are translated into disease development probabilities  in a consumer-comprehensible manner.  For instance, look at this post on Gizmodo where the anonymous-author shares his genetic test results from multiple well-known companies and remarks that “it’s a game of percentages stacked on percentages, all various levels of true based on research all confounding.”

Related posts:

1. Myriad Genetics to Appeal S.D.N.Y. Ruling Yesterday, Myriad Genetics expressed their disappointment and announced their plans...

It will be interesting to see how courts tailor computer use bans in the future to try to avoid this problem. Preventing people from using computers at home? Bans on using them while not doing work?

Related posts:

1. Amazon and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act In Podcast 8 we analyzed the legal implications of Amazon...
2. 9th Circuit Hands Down New Rules for Computer Searches Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the opinion which will substantially...
3. Academics Respond to Computer Search Case As always, the good folks at the Volokh Conspiracy, come...

Given the highly contentious nature of patents related to human genetic material, it’s not really surprising that Myriad plans to appeal.  I would even expect this litigation to be drawn out over the next several years–potentially to the point of Supreme Court review.

Another thing to keep in mind is that because these patents involve claims over methods of diagnostic processes (which arguably consist of mental steps) and gene isolation techniques, these types of patents may be subject to the Bilski case, which is still pending before the Supreme Court.  The highly anticipated Bilski ruling is expected in the coming months.

Keep in mind we’ll be covering this case on this week’s podcast!

Related posts:

1. ACLU v. Myriad: S.D.N.Y. Invalidates Human Gene Patents After nearly three years of litigation in ACLU v. Myriad...
2. Death to MS Word?: Microsoft Loses i4i Appeal in Patent Infringement Case On December 22, 2009, the Federal Circuit ruled all issues...
3. No Bilski Decision from SCOTUS Yet At Technically Legal we’re all waiting with bated breath for...