Chapter 44 - Intellectual Property
Study Practice
online quizzes
internet applications
internet research problem
sw legal case updates
glossary

chapter theme

Intellectual property is a major source of economic prosperity and individual wealth. New ideas increase both productivity and pleasure. Where would we be, as a society, without intellectual property-patented inventions, books, movies, computer software?

Return to Top


cyberlaw

  • The State Street case could have a profound impact on e-commerce as companies rush to patent techniques for doing business over the Internet. For example, Priceline.com recently received a patent for the reverse auction system offered on its Web site http://www.priceline.com. Customers list the price (backed up by a credit card) that they are willing to pay for an airline ticket, hotel room, car, or other item. Priceline then scours its database to find a seller willing to make a deal at that price. Proponents of these patents argue that they permit innovators on the Internet to protect their ideas. Otherwise, it is easy for copycats to open a rival Web site overnight. Critics counter that these patents could stifle e-commerce by limiting the use of new ideas. For example, a company called E-Data has sued, claiming that it owns the patent for the idea of selling software over the Internet.
  • Many Web sites give away free information and (try to) make money selling advertisements. To be successful, the sites must attract hordes of visitors. What can they do to lure cybersurfers? Some site operators embed words like "sex" and "nudity" in invisible coding, even if the sites have nothing to do with sex. Although visitors cannot see the words, search engines will still call up the site. Not content with these generic lures, Calvin Designer Label (no relation to Calvin Klein, the clothing designer) embedded the words "Playboy" and "Playmate" in machine-readable code on its Web site. A federal court entered a restraining order preventing Calvin Designer from infringing on Playboy's trademarks. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Calvin Designer Label, 985 F. Supp. 1220, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14345 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

Return to Top

 

© 2001 South-Western College Publishing, All Rights Reserved.