RULING ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ALLOWS COS. TO PUBLISH LEGAL INFO.A federal appeals court has upheld a federal district court's 1997 ruling that Thomson Corp. (Toronto, ON) subsidiary West Publishing Co.'s "enhanced" versions of court decisions are not entitled en·ti·tle tr.v. en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling, en·ti·tles 1. To give a name or title to. 2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: to copyright protection. Pending a further appeal to the Supreme Court by West, the ruling allows other legal information providers to electronically scan the contents of West's law books and then publish them on the Internet Internet Publicly accessible computer network connecting many smaller networks from around the world. It grew out of a U.S. Defense Department program called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), established in 1969 with connections between computers at the , on CD-ROM CD-ROM: see compact disc. CD-ROM in full compact disc read-only memory Type of computer storage medium that is read optically (e.g., by a laser). or in books of their own. The case, originally brought by West against Hyperlaw (New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of ) and Matthew Bender & Co. (New York), alleged that the two companies infringed on West copyright protection when they scanned U.S. Supreme Court and federal appeals court rulings directly from West publications. West contended that its published materials should have copyright protection because of the enhancements it provides, including histories, commentaries, opinions, case summaries, and information on judges and lawyers involved in each case. The original district court ruling held that West's additions and changes were "trivial TRIVIAL. Of small importance. It is a rule in equity that a demurrer will lie to a bill on the ground of the triviality of the matter in dispute, as being below the dignity of the court. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 4237. See Hopk. R. 112; 4 John. Ch. 183; 4 Paige, 364. " and did not warrant copyright protection. That court noted that Hyperlaw was copying "government documents" written by federal judges that should be accessible to the public. |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion