bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (07/06/88)
There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) -Barry Shein, Boston University (Datamation, July 1, 1988, p. 4)
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/88)
In article <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation > (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in > this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary > damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered > to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) > > Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a > copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) > > -Barry Shein, Boston University > > (Datamation, July 1, 1988, p. 4) PC Week carried an article about this case a while back. UCLA was caught pirating an engineering design package. Their legal scum went to court, admitted that UCLA had pirated someone's commercial package, far exceeding the limits of the license, and then claimed (and the courts upheld them) that Federal copyright law didn't apply to the States! After reviewing the text of the 11th Amendment: XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. (Isn't it wonderful to have the Constitution on-line?) Now, this seems to be an utterly absurd reading of the 11th amendment -- it clearly states that federal courts shall have no jurisdiction for suits brought against a State by citizens "of another State" -- and this particular case involved a citizen of California suing the State of California. Keep in mind that this *would unquestionably* protect UCLA from being sued in federal court by Microsoft, based in Washington. Clayton E. Cramer
goodguy@cup.portal.com (07/10/88)
The Federal Copyright Office has ruled on the general situation concerning the 11th Amendment whether you can sue a state or a entity of a state for copyright infringement. They said like under the old Copyright Act you can sue a state or an entity of a state and that the 11th Amendment was not a complete immunity shield against copyright suits. So you could probably expect some reversals. In other words, since you could nail a state during the time of the old Copyright Act, there's no reason why you can't do so today under the current Copyright Act. There was just some confusion as to applicability under the current Act.
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/15/88)
In article <7239@cup.portal.com> goodguy@cup.portal.com writes: >The Federal Copyright Office has ruled on the general situation concerning >the 11th Amendment whether you can sue a state or a entity of a state for >copyright infringement. The "Federal Copyright Office"? Patents and trademarks are handled by the Patent Office, a unit of the Department of Commerce. Copyrights are handled by a unit of the Library of Congress. In any case, opinions of the relevant administrative agencies on constitutional issues are just that; opinions of administrative agencies. The courts must rule on such issues. John Nagle
mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/16/88)
In article <261@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation > > (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in > > this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary > > damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered > > to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) > > > > Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a > > copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) > > [The 11th Amendment:] > XI. Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. > > The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend > to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the > United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of > any foreign state. > > [Cramer:] > Now, this seems to be an utterly absurd reading of the 11th amendment -- > it clearly states that federal courts shall have no jurisdiction for suits > brought against a State by citizens "of another State" -- and this particular > case involved a citizen of California suing the State of California. There's a catch -- a BIG one -- in all of this, which is that while UCLA, as an instrumentality of the State of California, may not be subject to Federal jurisdiction, the *individuals* who are accused of copyright infringement certainly are (and this was part of the decision). So nobody's getting away with anything, though if the individual defendants are penniless or do not have sufficiently "deep pockets" a full economic recovery might not be possible. I read about this in one of the lawyer glossies, but it didn't have a case citation. If someone provides one, or at least the parties and the court and the date, I'd love to chase down the opinion and post salient portions. I never did any copyright litigation, and thus don't know the full ins and outs; one question that comes to my mind is why UCLA cannot be sued in (California) state court for the copyright claims, leaving aside removal and pendent-litigation issues. Or is there a rule that the Federal courts have sole subject matter jurisdiction over copyright cases? Or did the court interpret "the judicial power of the United States" to mean Federal law claims in state court? Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb / ames!lll-tis!mcb