Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
John Wiley & Sons Inc Case
The Facts of the Case
Case 39-3 involves a copyright issue involving John Wiley & Sons Inc as the respondent and Supap Kirtsaeng as the petitioner. Wiley Asia is a publishing company that sells its books in the United States and other countries. However, each published book has a note on where it should be sold. Kirtsaeng was a Thailand government-sponsored citizen studying in the United States. He could not afford to buy all the books needed for studying and therefore sort to have his friends and family mail him the Wiley Asian books from home as they were cheaper there. On receiving the books, he would sell some, send some money to his friends and family in Thailand, and keep the profit to himself.
The Issue at the Law the Court Is Considering
Wiley Asia later took Kirtsaeng to court for copyright infringement. The accusations were that Kirtsaeng was infringing on Wiley’s rights to distribution and importation by importing the published books from Thailand and selling them in the United States (Manns & Roberts, 2018). The books Kirsaeng was selling were meant for foreign countries, making them imports. In his defense, Kirtsaeng argued that he had not violated any rights since he had rightfully acquired the books through purchase. Thus, he could sell or dispose of the books as he wished since the Copyrights Act’s of the “first sale” allowed him to do so.
How the Law Was Applied in This Case
In case 39-3, the law was applied by considering the acts and copyright acts and laws in place to protect the rights of publishers. The law was used to determine the rights provided to the respondent. It also determined the geographical coverage by the stated acts and rights. Moreover, it was used to reach a conclusive decision on whether any rights were violated. As well as assessing the number of damages caused to Wiley.
Court’s Conclusion
The court concluded that Wiley had a right to take the petitioner to court. Kirtsaeng had willingly infringed on Wiley’s rights and was thus guilty (Manns & Roberts, 2018). Wiley was the owner of the books and thus had exclusive rights to the distribution of his copies. Kirtsaeng selling the books without the permission or knowledge of the owner led to statutory damages. The court determined that the “first sale” doctrine did not apply as the books were copyrighted and published abroad.
Myriad Genetics Case
The Facts of the Case
Case 39-4 involves a patent case presented in court for a hearing. The two parties involved are Myriad Genetics Inc as the respondent, while patients, advocacy groups, and doctors were the petitioners. Myriad Genetics researched the risk factors a woman’s genes play in getting cancer. They discovered that some genes called BRCA go through mutation, thereby increasing the risk of cancer in women. Myriad Genetics then researched the location and sequence of the mutating genes that caused ovarian and breast cancer and how to manipulate them to reduce their effects.
The Issue at The Law the Court Is Considering
Myriad Genetics, therefore, got patents that allowed them to create complementary DNA and BRCA genes and isolate their patient’s genes. However, several years later, medical practitioners sued to invalidate the patents. They claimed that the study and research conducted by Myriad Genetics involved natural products. Research and discovery are limited by imposing patents on these things, thereby limiting innovation (Manns & Roberts, 2018). This resulted in the judge ruling that the existing patents should be invalidated.
How The Law Was Applied in This Case
In case 39-4, the law was applied by analyzing the patents granted to Myriad Genetics and how they affect future research. Allowing Myriad Genetics patents before revoking was a way law was used. It was also used to clarify the matters and items that should be granted patents and why they should or should not be granted. Additionally, the law established that Myriad Genetics Inc had not discovered or invented anything new in the DNA they had used. Thus upholding the law of nature applied in patent provision.
Court’s Conclusion
The District Court concluded that the issues relating to complementary DNA were not patent-eligible. Additionally, DNA isolation was not patent-eligible as the DNA occurs naturally. Isolating it does not give the right to issue a patent. This saw myriad Genetics claims and patents being dismissed. This was done to prevent limiting scientists in medicine from conducting further research on the discovered genes.
Summary of a Recent Article
Schweitzer (2022, July 22) wrote an article titled “Copyright & TM Cases To Watch In The Second Half Of 2022” that discussed some court cases regarding copyright and trademark infringement issues. One case described in the article is the case between Nike and StockX. Nike is accusing StockX of selling nonfungible tokens displaying Nike’s sneaker designs without permission. Nike claimed StockX were using their trademarked Nike shoe images to promote sales while selling counterfeit shoes. StockX disputed the claims stating that it only sells authentic shoes and that its platform is used to direct its customers to its storage facilities containing the goods.
Comments on Videos
In the first video, Vanilla Ice’s song Ice Ice Baby is sampled from David Bowie and Queen’s song “Under Pressure”; as they are both similar, he did not credit them and even denied it during an interview (Daniel, 2012). From the other videos, some songs are sampled, some are coincidental, and some are plagiarized and infringe copyright. However, there will be cases of similar songs in music due to general rhythms, melodic progressions, vocal patterns, and common musical elements. The music industry has to, therefore, come up with a way that dictates what sampling entails and the implications of not crediting the original creator of the song. Another artist accused of sampling songs is upcoming musician Ava Max. She has been accused of sampling several artists, such as Bonnie Tyler, ABBA, and Suzanne Vega (Avakocikay, 2020), as all the sampled songs are similar to the original song.
References
Avakocikay. (2020). Ava Max’s samples songs. YouTube. Web.
Daniel, B. (2012). Vanilla Ice MTV interview. YouTube. Web.
Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2018). Smith & Roberson’s business law. Cengage Learning.
Schweitzer, L. (2022). Copyright & TM cases to watch in the second half of 2022. Kirkland & Ellen. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.