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...
Saved in:
Published in | The Yale law journal Vol. 107; no. 1; pp. 267 - 272 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
New Haven, Conn
Yale University, School of Law
01.10.1997
Yale Law Journal Co Yale Law Journal Company, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
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 |