Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Package Patent Licensing After Microsoft
The law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.
The Uncertain Effects of Patent Bundling Drive Current Policy Decisions
Patents are commonly licensed in 'packages' or 'bundles.' For example, a license may include several distinct patents relating to a particular product for a single royalty rate. Courts have previously held mandatory package licensing of patents to be objectionable, however, because such an arrangement prevents the 'goods from competing directly for the consumer choice on their merits.' Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 13 (1984). The rationale is that by tying a desired product (the 'tying product') with unwanted products (the 'tied products'), market power of the tying product may be exploited thereby deterring innovation and diminishing competition in the tied product market. See Phillip Areeda & Louis Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis 686 (5th ed. 1997); Franklin M. Fisher & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, U.S. v. Microsoft ' An Economic Analysis, 46 Antitrust Bull. 1, 12 (2001).
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?