Intellectual Property
9/4 Book Notes
International News Service v. AP, U.S. Supreme Court (1918)
Parties: Complainant is the copycat news wire service, while respondent is the first and foremost news wire provider in the world.
Cause of action/remedy sought: Complainant news wire provider argues there should be no possibility of an injunction against it, while respondent wants the injunction implemented, as they allege the action will curb misdealings by complainant. (Equity)
Procedural History: U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction on two counts of bribing and inducing other agencies and AP writers to transmit their stories to complainant, which they used for reprint. Court of Appeals modified and sustained the injunction. This court affirms Court of Appeals.
Facts: INS either bribed employees of newspapers published by complainant’s members to furnish AP news to INS before publishing, for transmission by telegraph and telephone to defendant’s clients for publication by them. INS also induced AP members to transmit their stories to INS, in effect letting them obtain the news before publication. INS also copied the news right from AP, or rewrote the news.
Issue(s): Under property law, is there any property in news which is collected for the purpose of being published, and upon being published, is then copied and then sent out as property of another news outlet?
Holding: Yes. When the purpose amounts to nothing more than a blatant taking, copying and retransmitting information from one news gatherer to another, there is an action that no court of equity ought not hesitate long in characterizing as unfair competition in business.
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: There is no doubt that the news is public property, as from its earliest recreation as such, it was regarded as the history of the day. But this is a question of competition and fair business practice. AP spends tremendous amounts of money and labor every day on each story it puts out to various newspapers and such. For another company to take that product which results from AP’s time and effort, and to reprint it as its own, amounts to intellectual stealing. The bottom line is, news gathering costs money, and as such, the news which AP sells as its own should be regarded as quasi-property.
INS insists that sometimes the news is not published first, that instead, it is placed on bulletin boards for others to read, which creates public property, which creates fair game for the work to be reprinted and sold. But this argument falls short, b/c the application to AP as a business is not taken into consideration. Again, AP is a business, and a business makes money on its product. To steal this product is wrong, and goes against fair business practice. This is a question of intent, and at no time did AP ever intend to abandon its story for public use upon its being published on a bulletin board.
Rule: When the case-at-bar involves business competitors, when the rights or privileges of the one are liable to conflict with those of the other, each party is under a duty so to conduct its own business as not unnecessarily or unfairly to injure that of the other.
Class Notes
v Why take this class?
v Course Mechanics
v Justification for IP
Ø Incentive theory
§ If there is no protection when one creates a work, then they wont do it.
§ If anyone can copy and there is no property rights, no more creative works would be created
Ø Moral rights
§ Someone reaping benefits when they haven’t earned it is wrong
§ John Locke: “the labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.” (as long as there are more resources left for others to create from)
v What does it mean to create a property right?
Ø What’s the dif
, dangerous, new technology here (telegraph) à government should regulate
§ This decision is usually limited to “hot news”
Ø Perez Hilton’s blog – is it the same as INS v. AP?
§ Steals photos from X17 – morally wrong argument
§ Harm on incentive theory – no incentive to take photos or keep archive
§ But Hilton adds to the picture, not the same as INS
9/6
Book Notes
In Alderman v. Iditarod Properties, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that where a trade name has acquired secondary meaning prior to use by another business, it is infringed when confusion results from another’s use of it. The court also held that A.S. 10.35.040 requires prior use of a business name for its valid registration.Iditarod Properties, Inc. (“Iditarod”) restored the historic Fourth Avenue Theatre and ran several businesses from the premises. The Aldermans ran a trolley from the theater. After a disagreement resulted in severance of the oral agreement between Iditarod and the Aldermans, the Aldermans registered the business name “Fourth Avenue Theater Trolley Tours.” Iditarod later ran a trolley tour business under the same name, and filed suit for trade name infringement against the Aldermans. Because the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the trade name “Fourth Avenue Theater” had acquired secondary meaning, the Supreme Court found that the Aldermans’ use was infringing.The court also affirmed the interpretation of section 10.35.040 to require prior use for registration of a trade name.
