Assignments for March 15
L finds out that its engineers have used open source code that was available "for free" on the Internet subject to the General Public Licese version 2 (see www.fsf.org). L has embodied 25 lines of code from one GPLed program into its own source code; in the distributed object code version, customers cannot see what is GPLed code and what is proprietary code developed by L independently. L is also linking to a GPLed module of code that L distributes without modifications as a separate file on the CD that also stores L's own code. The GPLed module is linked to L's proprietary files via dynamic linking.
What does L have to do?
If L fails to do anything, who could take action against L because of the use of GPLed code?
What rights and remedies could a plaintiff have against L and under what legal theories?
Assignments for March 8
Please analyze this: The L company wants to use
distributors and would like to impose the following conditions:
1) The distributors may sell the software for the lens shaping process only if
they also buy the glass from L. L will buy glass from its own suppliers and
resell to the customer. The reason why L is requiring the use of its own glass
is because L wants to make sure that the quality of their lenses made with L's
software is really high so that L can maintain the reputation of its software.
2) The distributors may sell at whatever price they want, but L will also sell
directly to end-users at list and to the big customers, L will
sell at 20% off list. L will sell to the distributors at 25% off list.
3) Finally, distributors cannot sell to anyone who is competitive to L's
product offerings.
Analyze these conditions under antitrust law. If you find them illegal,
determine alternative ways to achieve the same goals for the customer.
Draft clauses of a distribution agreement to incorporate the conditions set out
above including any necessary corrections to comply with
antitrust laws.
Assignments for February 15
Please review Softman Prods. Co., LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2001) and make a one page recommendation to management regarding the software distribution model of our OEM, which should include or reference (as an Exhibit) an outline of clauses for distribution and end user license agreements.
Assignments for February 8
Please review Sega vs. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and Micro Star v. Formgen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) - both are in the course book, and the Lexmark case.
Optional reading (really) is: Sony vs. Conntectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).
The statutory excerpts I mentioned are posted here.
Assignments for February 1
Please read the two cases I mentioned in class (CA v. Altai and the Lotus 123 case) and use the insights gained to analyze the following hypothetical:
Our optical equipment manufacturer ("OEM") sells the software for shaping lenses to a competitor-only including the object code, not the source code. Several months later, this competitor releases a strikingly similar program. The screen display of the competing program includes the same command hierarchy, but different colors and design. The output of the two programs and the algorithm and formulae used in the competitor program are identical; however, the source code is written in a different language and the object code is different.
What rights and remedies does OEM have against its competitor?
.
Assignments for January 25
Please read Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc., 297 A.2d 433 (Del. Ch. 1971) and 297 A.2d 437 (Del. S. Ct. 1972) and Rivendell Forest Products v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994) and develop a trade secret protection policy for the company from our hypothetical (microscope manufacturer that has developed special lense shape calculation software).
Assignments for January 18