In the words of Portlandia, innovation is over. Or as another era of hipsters might say, innovation is dead anyway… Read More »Innovate or Innovation, Your Assurance of Meaningless Assertions
Question: Why 42 minutes 59 seconds? Not 43 minutes. Not 42 minutes, 58 seconds. 42 minutes 59 seconds. Solution: Step… Read More »42 minutes 59 seconds + copper wire (and a little more) = bliss
I know that Silicon Valley gets all the hoopla for the way knowledge and industry can thrive, but look a… Read More »Vintner, lawyer, pioneer, James Barrett has died
Does it advance the analytic ball re: the Kirtsaeng opinions to ask “what is a work?” in the first sale and importation contexts?
A friend and deep-thinking colleague asked me that question, knowing that I have a long-standing interest in the definition of “works,” and “inventions,” and “marks,” and “things” of all legal sorts. More precisely, the question was lobbed in my direction in this way: If a “work” is reproduced in copies in the US for US consumers, and also reproduced in copies in another country for that country’s consumers (let us say, Thailand, just for argument’s sake), then is the Thai “work” the same work as the US “work,” or is it a separate work? If it’s a separate work, then perhaps Thai law should dictate the treatment of re-sales and exports and imports of the Thai copies, rather than US law. And where does that lead us?
Here’s my very provisional outline of an answer. Corrections and improvements are welcome!Read More »Kirtsaeng: What is a “work”?
In reading the Kirstaeng decision, I was struck by some comments in both the majority and dissenting opinions that may… Read More »The Relevance of “Unenforced” Copyright Law