Courses

Intellectual Property - Summer 2001

Every lawyer needs to understand the basics of intellectual property law. Whether dealing with the logo on your clients taco stand, the ownership of web pages, whether your client's free speech claim is trumped by copyright law, or rights to your law firms own promotional materials, intellectual property issues now pervade most areas of law.  The course is intended to give the student enough information to recognize intellectual property problems, manage simple issues, and know when the client should be referred to an intellectual property expert.  It will also serve as good background for more advanced intellectual property courses. This is a text book course and you must buy the book.  We will not cover all the material in the book, but will focus on the core areas of intellectual property: trade secret; trademark; copyright; and patent.

Text - Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, Second Edition
Mark Lemley, Professor, Peter S. Menell, Professor, and Robert P. Merges, Professor, Aspen Publishers (2000) - available at the book store or from Aspen.

Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age - Updates - These are provided by the authors.  This is the "official copy" that you are responsible for reading.  - You should review these for new developments since the text as published.  This is a

23 May 2001

Pages 1 - 65.

Read the assigned pages carefully and review the questions that follow each case.  We will discuss these in class.  Think about why we protect intellectual property and how it differs from traditional property.

30 May 2001

Pages 66 - 123.

4 June 2001

Through 178

5 June 2001

Through 239

...

25 June 2001

Through 490

27 June 2001

Through 557

2 July 2001

Through 680

Trademark Study Guide I - 557 - 680

Interesting quote from the Microsoft Opinion re intellectual property misuse:

"Microsoft 's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous. The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its intellectual property as it wishes:' '[I ]f intellectual property rights have been lawfully acquired,'' it says, then ''their subsequent exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability.'' Appellant 's Opening Br.at 105. That is no more correct than the proposition that use of one 's person- al property, such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability. As the Federal Circuit succinctly stated:' 'Intellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws.'' In re Indep. Serv. Orgs. Antitrust Litig.,203 F.3d 1322,1325 (Fed.Cir.2000)."

9 July 2001

Through 795 - Trademark Study Guide II - 680 - 794