| Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 |
|
| Part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 provided that copyrighted works be protected for the duration of the author's life plus no less than 50 years. The European Union extended the 50 year protection to 70 years in 1993, and the United States did the same on October 28, 1998, with the signing of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). CTEA allows works still under copyright in the United States to be granted copyright protection for the duration of the author's life plus 70 years for individual works and corporate works. Works published before January 1, 1978, are protected for up to 95 years. Works-for-hire, anonymous, or pseudonymous works are protected for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation under CTEA. The Act is named after the now-deceased songwriter and singer Sonny Bono, who had lobbied for copyright extension. CTEA is also known as the "Mickey Mouse Act" because one of the biggest proponents of the bill was the Disney company. CTEA does not retroactively apply to works for which copyright protection had expired as of October 28, 1998. More... |
|
|
| Right of Priority in Patents in International Context |
|
| One of the trickiest aspects of patent applications, particularly in the international context, is establishing the priority of patent rights. Rules applying to priority differ starkly between the United States and many foreign countries. The United States has a "first-to-invent" rule, which means that an inventor that can establish that he or she was the first to conceive of and create an invention will be given priority over another inventor of the same invention even if the second inventor applies for a patent first. In contrast, many foreign countries have a "first-to-file" rule, which means that the first inventor to apply for a patent will be given priority even if another inventor actually conceived of and created the same invention first. Further complicating the issue of priority is the fact that, in the United States, an inventor may publicly disclose an unpatented invention and will have a year to file for a patent. In many foreign countries, any public disclosure of an invention renders it ineligible for a patent. Thus, a U.S. inventor might be able to obtain a U.S. patent but be ineligible for patent protection in other countries even though U.S. patent rules were correctly followed. More... |
|
|
| Patent Law |
|
| A patent is a property right that the federal government gives to an inventor with respect to an invention. That property right is the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention without the inventor's permission for the limited period specified by the patent statute. A person or other entity that makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the invention covered by the patent is said to liable for direct infringement of the patent. Patent infringement is classified by the law as a "tort," which is a wrong--other than a breach of contract--for which the law provides a remedy. Therefore, the rules of tort law will govern how a lawsuit alleging patent infringement is to be commenced and prosecuted. More... |
|
|
| The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 |
|
| The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) is an amendment to the United
States Federal Copyright Act of 1976. It provides that parties who import or manufacture "digital audio recording devices and media" must make payments to the United States Copyright Office. These payments are meant to act as the royalties that those who have copyrighted music have presumably lost through the consumer use of digital audio recording devices. The royalty fees are invested in specific U.S. securities and then disbursed to copyright holders yearly through the U.S. Copyright Office
More... |
|
|
| Expert Testimony in Trademark Infringement Actions |
|
| There are standards that must be met for admissibility of expert testimony in trademark infringement actions. Experts may have their methods challenged before they take the stand. Expert testimony may be excluded as speculative and unreliable if an expert's methods are not based on sufficient facts or data, are not reliable, or are not applied reliably to the facts of the case. More... |
|
|