Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

By R. Todd Wilson

All businesses have trade secrets. Stated slightly differently, every business has information that it would rather keep confidential. A trade secret can be any useful information that is not generally known. Trade secrets encompass both technical information such as formulas, designs, tools, manufacturing processes, and computer source code as well as business secrets including customer lists, employee lists, financial and accounting data, product plans and marketing plans. Such “confidential” or “proprietary” information is usually essential to the success of the business. Often, however, companies do little or nothing to protect that knowledge.
Continue Reading Trade Secrets: Protection Best Practices

By R. Todd Wilson

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on July 13, 2005 that the export of software from the United States to foreign computer manufacturers which copy and install the software and then sell computers loaded with the software abroad constitutes an infringing supply of a patented component in violation of Section 271(f) of the United States Patent Act. The case is AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WL 1631112 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2005). This case, considered together with Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005), lays out the Federal Circuit’s current interpretation of Section 271(f) regarding the exportation of software code.
Continue Reading Exported Software Copies Are Infringing Supply of Components in Microsoft Cases

By Scott Hervey

On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in MGM v. Grokster.#160 That case involved an appeal from the Ninth Circuit by MGM, various record labels and other content owners of an adverse decision in their attempt to hold Grokster and other peer-to-peer network companies liable for copyright infringement.#160 MGM and the other content owners had initially filed a lawsuit against Grokster and other peer-to-peer network technology companies to hold them liable for damages resulting from their supplying the technology that enabled users to trade online copyrighted works.#160 The Ninth Circuit, upholding the District Court’s finding, held that the technology companies could not be held either vicariously liable or liable for contributory copyright infringement.#160 In coming to its conclusion, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the Sony v. Betamax case in holding that the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing uses could not give rise to contributory liability for infringement unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act on that knowledge.#160 Because the Ninth Circuit found the technology company’s software to be capable of substantial noninfringing uses and because respondents had no actual knowledge of infringement resulting from the software’s decentralized architecture, the court held that they were not liable.#160 (The architecture of the defendant’s file trading network is an open network.#160 That is, it does not have a central server like the old Napster network but rather uses nodes and supernodes; computer systems that are owned by users of the software and have no relationship to the defendants.)#160 The Ninth Circuit also held that the defendants did not materially contribute to their user’s infringement because the users themselves searched for, retrieved and stored the infringing files, with no involvement by respondents beyond providing the software in the first place.#160 Finally, the court held that the defendants could not be held liable under a vicarious infringement theory because the defendants did not monitor or control the software use and had no agreed upon right or current ability to supervise its use and had no independent duty to police infringement

Continue Reading The Grokster Decision- What Does It Really Mean?