Neither intellectual nor property

Courts have rarely, if ever, had to make the hard choice between the incentive and remunerative purposes of intellectual property law in a particular case. National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola Inc. (1997) presents a rate fact pattern in which the plaintiff's remuneration and the plaintiff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Yale law journal Vol. 107; no. 1; pp. 267 - 272
Main Author Youn, Monica Y
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New Haven, Conn Yale University, School of Law 01.10.1997
Yale Law Journal Co
Yale Law Journal Company, Inc
Subjects
Copyright
Federal court decisions
Incentives
Information technology
Intellectual property
Professional basketball
Property rights
Public domain
Rhetoric
Scandals
U.S.A
United States
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Courts have rarely, if ever, had to make the hard choice between the incentive and remunerative purposes of intellectual property law in a particular case. National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola Inc. (1997) presents a rate fact pattern in which the plaintiff's remuneration and the plaintiff's incentives may be separately considered, allowing a court to explore the full ramifications of the incentive logic of intellectual property. The 2nd Circuit's decision is significant in 2 principal ways. First, it substantially narrows the scope of "hot news" misappropriation - one of the last bastions of a Lockean labor theory of property and a perennial bete noire of intellectual property incentive theorists. Second, it goes further than any previously reported case by indicating that intellectual property law will not protect a plaintiff's remuneration if the plaintiff's incentives are not thereby protected.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0044-0094
1939-8611
DOI:10.2307/797282