case studies Flashcards Preview

BS3924: Intellectual Properties and Information Rights A 22/23 (S2) > case studies > Flashcards

Flashcards in case studies Deck (17)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

OiNK was a music torrent site from 2004 - 2007. Creator Alan Ellis was tried for conspiracy to defraud, but was acquitted in 2010.

Why was Ellis found not guilty, and what important point does this raise?

A

Ellis was found not guilty because he never stored the music files himself, instead indexing available files from the user’s torrent connections on the site.

This raises the question of how copyright laws are realised in the online domain.

2
Q

Myriad Genetics patented some naturally occuring DNA they had isolated. In 2013 this patent was disputed and the DNA was deemed unpatentable. Why was this?

A

There was a case where a company tried to patent a bit of DNA they had isolated.

This case was beteween Myriad Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP). It took place in 2013 and was decided by the US Supreme Court

Myriad Genetics had isolated two genes associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP challenged this, arguing you can’t patent creation sof nature.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it could not be patented

But, if the DNA had been synthetic DNA created by Myriad Genetics, it could be eligible for a patent. The key distinguishing factor is that synthetic DNA would be a product of human manipulation, whereas normal DNA is naturally occurring and hence not invented by Myriad Genetics

3
Q

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2010-2021)

A

This high-profile case involved a dispute between Oracle and Google over the use of Java APIs in the Android operating system. Oracle claimed that Google’s use of certain Java APIs infringed on its copyright. The case went through multiple trials and appeals, with a lower court initially ruling in favor of Oracle, but the Supreme Court of the United States decided in favor of Google in 2021.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in his written opinion, said that “to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public”. This is because of the amount of programmers and software which rely on Java, to enforce this would be “a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs”.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

4
Q

SCO Group, Inc. v. IBM (2003-2016)

A

The SCO Group, formerly known as Caldera International, sued IBM for copyright infringement, claiming that IBM’s contributions to the Linux operating system violated SCO’s intellectual property rights. The case involved allegations of misappropriation of UNIX source code. After several years of litigation and appeals, SCO’s claims were ultimately rejected by the courts.

5
Q

Microsoft Corporation v. Datel Holdings Ltd. (2010)

A

In this case, Microsoft sued Datel Holdings, a manufacturer of third-party accessories for video game consoles, including Xbox 360. Microsoft alleged that Datel’s products circumvented copyright protection mechanisms and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The case resulted in a settlement between the parties.

6
Q

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (2011-2018)

A

This widely publicized case involved a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple and Samsung over smartphone technology. Apple accused Samsung of infringing on several design and utility patents related to the iPhone. The litigation spanned multiple jurisdictions and resulted in various rulings and settlements over the years.

7
Q

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014)

A

This case reached the United States Supreme Court and revolved around the issue of software patent eligibility. Alice Corp. had patented a computer-implemented method for mitigating settlement risk, which CLS Bank challenged, arguing that the patent was invalid as it covered an abstract idea. The Supreme Court ruled that Alice’s patent claims were invalid because they were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept.

8
Q

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership (2011)

A

In this case, Microsoft was sued by i4i for patent infringement related to XML editing capabilities in Microsoft Word. i4i claimed that Microsoft’s software infringed on its patent covering custom XML functionality. The case went to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of i4i, upholding the requirement that a patent can only be invalidated by clear and convincing evidence.

9
Q

Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp. (2017)

A

Intellectual Ventures, a patent holding company, sued Capital One for infringing on its patents related to various aspects of online banking and financial transactions. The case involved several patents and complex technology issues. It ultimately resulted in a jury verdict in favour of Intellectual Ventures, with Capital One being ordered to pay damages.

10
Q

Adobe Systems Inc. v. One Stop Micro (2001)

A

Adobe sued One Stop Micro, a company that sold unauthorized copies of Adobe software, for trademark infringement. One Stop Micro was found liable for trademark infringement and ordered to pay damages to Adobe.

11
Q

Microsoft Corporation v. Lindows.com Inc. (2001-2004)

A

Microsoft filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Lindows.com, a company that developed an operating system called “Lindows” which Microsoft claimed was too similar to its own “Windows” trademark. The case went through multiple trials and appeals, and ultimately, the parties reached a settlement, with Lindows.com changing its name to “Linspire.”

12
Q

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation (2008-2011)

A

Apple sued Psystar, a company that sold computers with Mac OS X installed, alleging trademark infringement, among other claims. Apple argued that Psystar’s use of the Apple logo and the “Mac” trademark without authorization constituted trademark infringement. The court ruled in favor of Apple, finding Psystar liable for trademark infringement and other violations.

13
Q

Oracle America, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. (2010-2020)

A

Oracle sued Rimini Street, a third-party software support provider, for trademark infringement and other claims. Oracle claimed that Rimini Street used Oracle’s trademarks without authorization in its marketing materials and other communications. The case involved several legal battles, and in 2020, the court ruled in favor of Oracle, finding Rimini Street liable for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and other violations.

14
Q

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2017-2018)

A

Waymo, the self-driving car division of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), sued Uber for trade secret misappropriation. Waymo alleged that a former employee, who later joined Uber, stole confidential and proprietary information related to autonomous vehicle technology. The case settled during trial, with Uber agreeing to provide Waymo with equity worth approximately $245 million.

15
Q

United States v. Sergey Aleynikov (2010)

A

Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs programmer, was charged with stealing proprietary source code related to Goldman Sachs’ high-frequency trading platform. Aleynikov copied the code before leaving the company to join a startup. He was convicted of trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act but later had his conviction overturned on appeal.

16
Q

Oracle Corporation v. SAP AG (2007-2014)

A

Oracle filed a lawsuit against SAP, accusing its subsidiary TomorrowNow of illegally downloading Oracle’s copyrighted software and other confidential materials. SAP admitted to inappropriate downloads and copyright infringement, but the case mainly revolved around the damages to be awarded. The court initially awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages, but that amount was reduced to $272 million on appeal.

17
Q

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. (2017-2020)

A

Motorola Solutions filed a lawsuit against Hytera Communications, a Chinese two-way radio manufacturer, for trade secret theft and copyright infringement. Motorola accused Hytera of using stolen Motorola trade secrets to develop and sell radios. The case went to trial, and the jury found Hytera liable for trade secret theft and awarded Motorola $764.6 million in damages.