Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Post by xxyyjj8 » Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:42:47


inth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

Recently, an individual software developer and his company sued two
large U.S. corporations for software piracy, with ample evidence. The
U.S. federal court in California ruled against the individual and
dismissed the lawsuits. The cases generated a lot of controversy in
cyberspace. Examining these two cases, it is evident that U.S.
intellectual property protection is yet another game of double
standards and double rules.

In the first case, defendant Symantec Corporation embedded the pirated
software in its internet security products. The pirated software was
originally licensed to an Israeli person and would display the name of
the user and the message: ne User License Symantec sold the
software to over 600 corporate and government customers, many with
rights to make unlimited copies. After the lawsuit, Symantec informed
the court that it stopped the use of the pirated software. In fact, it
just altered the file names to conceal the continued use.

However, the U.S. federal court omitted key evidence and dismissed the
case by summary judgment. The court easoned since the plaintiff
could not prove that defendant saw the ne User Licensemessage,
there was no infringement. See Netbula v. Symantec Corp., 516 F. Supp.
2d 1137.

In the second case, defendant Sun Microsystems managers admitted
that Sun had exceeded the software licenses. One Sun manager even
warned that the piracy may cause trouble for the company. But Sun
concealed its activities from the copyright owner and continued the
piracy for years, including allowing others to make unlimited copies.
Again, the U.S. federal court (Martin J. Jenkins, Elizabeth D. Laporte
Judges) ignored the evidence, including the copyrights registered in
the individual personal name. The court not only ruled that Sun did
not infringe copyright, but also ordered the individual to pay Sun
large sum in attorney fees. The court holding was quite broad. It
concluded that the restriction that ne user can only use the
software on one computer for each license purchaseddoes not limit
how the software may be used, and therefore, there was no
infringement.

In the January 2008 edition of utlook Weekly Dr. Yong Jiang,
Director of the Research Center for Economical Security at the
Research Institute of Modern International Relations of China, stated
that the rules of intellectual property are exploitation mechanisms
for the West to rab moneyfrom the rest of the world. In other
words, intellectual property is a political and economical device for
the West to suppress competition, monopolize markets and extract
maximum profits.

Such views are supported by an April 9, 2006 editorial by the Los
Angeles Times, titled ow Piracy Opens Doors for Windows.According
to the article, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said that Microsoft
allowed Chinese to tealits software. His plot: heyl get sort
of addicted, and then wel somehow figure out how to collect sometime
in the next decade.Hal Varian, a professor of information management
at UC Berkeley, compared Microsoft business model to street-corner
marketing of illicit drugs: he first dose is free. Once you start
using a product, you keep using it.
The street drug dealer relies on addict
 
 
 

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Post by xxyyjj8 » Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:19:40

inth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

Recently, an individual software developer and his company sued two
large U.S. corporations for software piracy, with ample evidence. The
U.S. federal court in California ruled against the individual and
dismissed the lawsuits. The cases generated a lot of controversy in
cyberspace. Examining these two cases, it is evident that U.S.
intellectual property protection is yet another game of double
standards and double rules.

In the first case, defendant Symantec Corporation embedded the pirated
software in its internet security products. The pirated software was
originally licensed to an Israeli person and would display the name of
the user and the message: ne User License Symantec sold the
software to over 600 corporate and government customers, many with
rights to make unlimited copies. After the lawsuit, Symantec informed
the court that it stopped the use of the pirated software. In fact, it
just altered the file names to conceal the continued use.

However, the U.S. federal court omitted key evidence and dismissed the
case by summary judgment. The court easoned since the plaintiff
could not prove that defendant saw the ne User Licensemessage,
there was no infringement. See Netbula v. Symantec Corp., 516 F. Supp.
2d 1137.

In the second case, defendant Sun Microsystems managers admitted
that Sun had exceeded the software licenses. One Sun manager even
warned that the piracy may cause trouble for the company. But Sun
concealed its activities from the copyright owner and continued the
piracy for years, including allowing others to make unlimited copies.
Again, the U.S. federal court (Martin J. Jenkins, Elizabeth D. Laporte
Judges) ignored the evidence, including the copyrights registered in
the individual personal name. The court not only ruled that Sun did
not infringe copyright, but also ordered the individual to pay Sun
large sum in attorney fees. The court holding was quite broad. It
concluded that the restriction that ne user can only use the
software on one computer for each license purchaseddoes not limit
how the software may be used, and therefore, there was no
infringement.

In the January 2008 edition of utlook Weekly Dr. Yong Jiang,
Director of the Research Center for Economical Security at the
Research Institute of Modern International Relations of China, stated
that the rules of intellectual property are exploitation mechanisms
for the West to rab moneyfrom the rest of the world. In other
words, intellectual property is a political and economical device for
the West to suppress competition, monopolize markets and extract
maximum profits.

Such views are supported by an April 9, 2006 editorial by the Los
Angeles Times, titled ow Piracy Opens Doors for Windows.According
to the article, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said that Microsoft
allowed Chinese to tealits software. His plot: heyl get sort
of addicted, and then wel somehow figure out how to collect sometime
in the next decade.Hal Varian, a professor of information management
at UC Berkeley, compared Microsoft business model to street-corner
marketing of illicit drugs: he first dose is free. Once you start
using a product, you keep using it.
The street drug dealer relies on addict
 
 
 

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Post by xxyyjj8 » Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:17:34

inth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright
Protection

Recently, an individual software developer and his company sued two
large U.S. corporations for software piracy, with ample evidence. The
U.S. federal court in California ruled against the individual and
dismissed the lawsuits. The cases generated a lot of controversy in
cyberspace. Examining these two cases, it is evident that U.S.
intellectual property protection is yet another game of double
standards and double rules.

In the first case, defendant Symantec Corporation embedded the pirated
software in its internet security products. The pirated software was
originally licensed to an Israeli person and would display the name of
the user and the message: ne User License Symantec sold the
software to over 600 corporate and government customers, many with
rights to make unlimited copies. After the lawsuit, Symantec informed
the court that it stopped the use of the pirated software. In fact, it
just altered the file names to conceal the continued use.

However, the U.S. federal court omitted key evidence and dismissed the
case by summary judgment. The court easoned since the plaintiff
could not prove that defendant saw the ne User Licensemessage,
there was no infringement. See Netbula v. Symantec Corp., 516 F. Supp.
2d 1137.

In the second case, defendant Sun Microsystems managers admitted
that Sun had exceeded the software licenses. One Sun manager even
warned that the piracy may cause trouble for the company. But Sun
concealed its activities from the copyright owner and continued the
piracy for years, including allowing others to make unlimited copies.
Again, the U.S. federal court (Martin J. Jenkins, Elizabeth D. Laporte
Judges) ignored the evidence, including the copyrights registered in
the individual personal name. The court not only ruled that Sun did
not infringe copyright, but also ordered the individual to pay Sun
large sum in attorney fees. The court holding was quite broad. It
concluded that the restriction that ne user can only use the
software on one computer for each license purchaseddoes not limit
how the software may be used, and therefore, there was no
infringement.

In the January 2008 edition of utlook Weekly Dr. Yong Jiang,
Director of the Research Center for Economical Security at the
Research Institute of Modern International Relations of China, stated
that the rules of intellectual property are exploitation mechanisms
for the West to rab moneyfrom the rest of the world. In other
words, intellectual property is a political and economical device for
the West to suppress competition, monopolize markets and extract
maximum profits.

Such views are supported by an April 9, 2006 editorial by the Los
Angeles Times, titled ow Piracy Opens Doors for Windows.According
to the article, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said that Microsoft
allowed Chinese to tealits software. His plot: heyl get sort
of addicted, and then wel somehow figure out how to collect sometime
in the next decade.Hal Varian, a professor of information management
at UC Berkeley, compared Microsoft business model to street-corner
marketing of illicit drugs: he first dose is free. Once you start
using a product, you keep using it.
The street drug dealer relies on addict