Grokking the ‘ster

Cathy Kirkman finds two recent decisions– one patent, the other copyright– citing Grokster: Grokster cited in patent inducement case. The Federal Circuit cites Grokster for the proposition that “Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe.”
In Monotype Imaging v. Bitstream, Inc. (N.D.Ill. Jul. 12, 2005), the district court found no evidence for inducement in “contributory infringement claims over software that replicates typeface fonts.”
As we are still trying to figure out what the effects of Grokster will turn out to be, the analysis is in full effect.
Lawrence Lessig, Wired Magazine: A Rotten Ruling: “Pundits bathed the Court in praise for its “sensible balance” between the demands of Hollywood and the pleas of technologists. The pundits are idiots. The Grokster case revealed the worst in Supreme Court ivory towerism.”
Oxford Analytica, Forbes.com: Grokster Decision Has Limited Impact: “Strong consumer demand for fee-free file swapping, the difficulty of pursuing legal judgements against individual infringers and the lack of a stable technological solution means file swapping will continue to grow. Restructuring to reduce or eliminate intermediaries in the current business model for content distribution appears inevitable.”
The Congressional Internet Caucus held a session on July 19, Interpreting Grokster: Protecting Copyright in the the Age of Peer-to-Peer with Andrew Greenberg (Carlton Fields), Don Verrilli (Jenner & Block) and Fred von Lohmann (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Streaming video and downloadable audio are available.

One Comment

  1. Grokking the ‘Ster

    Via Andrew Raff, Cathy Kirkman’s analysis of two recent decisions that cite the MGM v. Grokster ruling — one in a patent case, one in a copyright case: Grokster Cited in Patent Inducement Case….

Comments are closed.