The MTTLR Blog

A three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld the injunction against Microsoft that goes into effect January 11, 2010.  The panel also upheld the nearly $300 million in damages from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  The injunction will bar Microsoft from selling versions of Word that contain the ability to open documents with “custom XML.”  The injunction does not affect any versions of Word sold before January 11, 2010, but does prevent Microsoft from “instructing or assisting new customers in the custom XML editor’s use.”  Technical support can still be offered by Microsoft from versions of Word sold before January 11.  Regardless, Microsoft has said that it is ready to remove the infringing feature from copies of Word and Office that will be sold after January 11.  The upcoming 2010 versions of Word and Office should not have the infringing feature, and thus should be unaffected by the injunction.

The only changes to the injunction by the panel were a modification of the effective date of the injunction, from the original 60 days (stayed during appeal) to 5 months from the original issue date of the injunction.  This was because the panel determined that the district court erred in setting a time frame of 60 days, when the only evidence concerning time to remove the infringing XML functions from Word was “at least” 5 months.  As Microsoft has said, it initiated steps in August to remove the infringing feature, so the change in the effective date of the injunction should have little practical impact.

In regard to the damages, most significant is the $200 million damages for royalties.  The panel even admitted that, “Given the opportunity to review the sufficiency of the evidence, we could have considered whether the $ 200 million damages award was “grossly excessive or monstrous” in light of Word’s retail price and the licensing fees Microsoft paid for other patents.”  The opinion makes it sound as if the panel, if able to review sufficiency, would have significantly reduced the royalty damages.  This is because the baseline royalty rate used by i4i’s expert witness to calculate damages was $98, when certain Word products could sell for as low as $97.  On a sufficiency review, it seems entirely possible that the baseline royalty used was grossly excessive and monstrous, since it could be greater than the entire selling price of a single copy of Word.  Further, Microsoft told the court the typical license it paid to use a patent was in the $1 – $5 million range, something completely out of line with the i4i calculations of $200 million.  But the panel stated it was unable to review the sufficiency of the evidence, as Microsoft had failed to file a pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law motion, restraining the panel’s review to the standard of a clear showing of excessiveness.  The panel even seemed to question Microsoft’s failure to file a pre-verdict JMOL motion as to the sufficiency of the evidence for the damages, stating, “Had Microsoft filed a pre-verdict JMOL, it is true that the outcome might have been different” because then the panel could decide “whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s damages award.”  Given the panel’s statements, Microsoft might have blown its chance to have the damages significantly reduced on appeal by deciding not to file a JMOL motion for sufficiency of the evidence as to damages.

It also seems as if i4i’s decision to file in Texas has paid off, after gaining some measure of approval from the panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  I don’t know if I would go so far as to call the panel’s opinion “a complete and utter vindication of the judgment,” given the statements of the panel regarding the royalty calculation and the limited level of review available for the findings of the jury, but it does give some credence to the inability of an appeal to alter the jury verdict.  While Microsoft’s loss on appeal may not make the district court’s decision completely right, it may well signal the verdict’s irreversibility.  The Federal Circuit may well refuse a request for a full hearing, as the decision clearly sets out the limits of appellate review in this case.

The size of the verdict against Microsoft makes you wonder why they didn’t just license the patent from i4i back in 2000, when Microsoft was aware of i4i’s presence in the market, or even at the start of litigation in 2007.  At this point, there appear to be very few reasons for i4i to consider talking with Microsoft about licenses or settlement, as i4i looks to have a winning case and a firm hold on nearly $300 million from Microsoft.

One of the most prominent copyright/fair use cases over the last year has been artist Shepard Fairey’s dispute with the Associated Press (AP) over his famous poster of now-President Obama during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. The poster, which featured a stylized portrait of Obama with the word “Hope” underneath, was supposedly based off of an AP photograph taken of Obama at a 2006 event organized by George Clooney on Darfur, which Fairey then modified to create the now-iconic HOPE poster. The AP claimed that because Fairey’s work for based off an AP photograph to which the AP owned the copyright, Fairey was required under copyright law to apply for permission for use of the photograph. Fairey consistently claimed that he did not profit from the poster, but instead used the proceeds to produce additional prints, and disputed the AP’s identification of the original photo as a closeup of Obama rather than a photo of both Obama and Clooney.

Fairey, who was then represented by Anthony Falzone, Executive Director of Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project, claimed that his use of the photograph came under the “fair use” exception and thus permission was not required. Fair use hasn’t often been applied to photographs, so the issue seemed likely to become a fascinating test case, especially after Fairey filed for declaratory judgment against the AP in February 2009 seeking a determination that his use came under the doctrine of fair use.

The case was further complicated by the claims of the original photographer, Mannie Garcia, who was working under contract for the AP when he took the photograph; Garcia claimed that the copyright for the photo belonged to him, not to the AP. Garcia’s latest position in the legal skirmish is as a defendant, counterclaim plaintiff, and cross-claim plaintiff/defendant.

At the time, it seemed that Fairey had a chance of winning. Fair use disputes are resolved by a four-factor test; the four factors are:

1. the purpose and character of the use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The first factor relates to the use of the original material; by cropping, colorizing, and reorienting Obama’s posture from the original photograph, as Fairey claimed he’d done, it’s probable that a court would have deemed Fairey’s use sufficiently transformative to satisfy that factor.

The second factor concerns the distinction between fiction and fact; since Fairey copied from something factual (a photograph from a news event) rather than something fictional (for example, a novel), it’s possible that he would have succeeded on this factor as well, since only fictional works can be copyrighted. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), that only a “spark” of originality was required in order for something to come under copyright protection, it seems probable that the original photograph would have been protected by copyright. Fairey would thus have faced a tougher battle on the second factor compared to the first.

The third factor presents one of the most interesting elements of the case. The less someone uses of the original work, the better case they have for fair use. For example, if a musician copies only a few seconds from six minute song into a remix, she’ll have a stronger basis for fair use than if she uses five minutes. Since Fairey supposedly cropped out George Clooney from the original photograph, he had a fairly good position on this factor. As the LA Times noted, how often does George Clooney get cropped out of a photograph? The fourth and final factor also seemed to weigh in Fairey’s favor. Fairey’s poster did not impede the AP from selling the rights to the original photograph to newspapers and other media outlets, especially given that the photograph was over two years old by the time Fairey began selling prints of it.

Last month, the entire case took on a dramatic twist when it came to light that Fairey had lied about which photograph he’d used for the HOPE poster. Instead of using a photo of Clooney and Obama, Fairey admitted that he had used the photograph that the AP had always claimed he’d used (a closeup of Obama) and that he had deleted images and submitted false ones in connection with the lawsuit. As a result, Falzone and the Fair Use Project declared their intention to withdraw from the case, as they couldn’t ethically represent Fairey after his lies came to light. Falzone noted that he still believed in the merits of Fairey’s case; the AP, however, countered that Fairey’s admission undermined his fair use argument and that they would block the withdrawal of Falzone and the Fair Use Project. The Fair Use Project’s proposed replacements are Geoffrey Stewart, a partner at Jones Day, and William Fisher and John Palfrey of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Law and Society.

Crucially, Fairey’s admission impedes his claims under the third factor of fair use, as he did not modify the original photograph as much as he claimed and took a larger proportion of the original work. Still, Falzone’s support of Fairey’s claims even after exiting the case doesn’t seem naive; it’s conceivable that a court could still find fair use. But as many have noted, it’s hard to seek a defense that uses the word “fair” when you’ve lied about the case. The case is still going forward, but Fairey’s position is far weaker than it was a few weeks ago, though the LA Times ran an editorial this week that supports Fairey’s claims on the merits. But what could have been a fascinating test case for the status of fair use in copyright law has been muddled as a result of Fairey’s deception, and it remains unclear what this could mean for other artists working in similar ways.

The lawsuit between rock artist Jackson Browne and Senator John McCain and the Republican Party was recently settled, and ordered dismissed on August 4, 2009, almost a year after the suit was filed by Browne.

Browne filed a lawsuit against McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the Ohio Republican Party over the unauthorized usage of Browne’s signature song “Running on Empty” in a commercial criticizing the energy policy of then-Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  The commercial, which aired on television and YouTube.com, featured parts of the sound recording of “Running on Empty” throughout.

The causes of action listed in Browne’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in California, included copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of the California common law right of publicity.  The defendants’ motion to dismiss, relied, amongst other things, on a fair use defense against Browne’s copyright claims and a political speech exemption against the trademark claim.  The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied.

The lawsuit brought to light the clash between intellectual property rights and fair use as well as the First Amendment in the context of political speech, as political campaigns turn more and more to popular culture references in the media to reach out to voters.  McCain was also opposed by artists for his campaign’s use of popular music from the Foo Fighters, Heart, and John Mellencamp.  Even Obama ran into trouble during his campaign, when soul legend Sam Moore (of “Soul Man” fame) asked Obama to stop using one of his songs.

Twitter has been the subject of controversy as of late, primarily regarding the content of “tweets,” Twitter’s user-sent messages.  Some of this controversy has turned into legal action.  While the highest-profile controversies involve celebrities, such as the one involving the recently-settled lawsuit regarding a Twitter impostor of Major League Baseball manager Tony LaRussa, even non-celebrities have filed Twitter-related lawsuits, such as in the Chicago, Illinois lawsuit involving a corporate landlord taking offense to a tenant’s allegedly libelous “tweets” regarding her “moldy” apartment.

Thus, it may not have been much of a surprise that the wildly popular micro-blogging service itself was hit with a patent lawsuit.

On August 4, 2009, a Texas technology company filed a lawsuit against Twitter for patent infringement.  In its complaint, plaintiff TechRadium alleges that Twitter infringes on TechRadium’s patented IRIS mass notification system technology.  While attorney George Borkowski commented in Wired “Twitter is likely to claim that the [TechRadium] patents should be voided because what has been patented is too generic,”  we will be waiting to see what consequences the lawsuit will have on the digital media world.