Is there anything more gloriously effed-up than IP law? I submit to you there is not. Here's the sub-headline for Eriq Gardner's Hollywood Reporter article, which deftly sums up the predicament facing a filmmaker looking to make a movie based on an old Buck Rogers novella.
Don Murphy can only clear rights if he potentially violates them first.That's the ruling boiled down to a dozen words. The details, while enlightening, do nothing to change the underlying fact that Murphy may have to get sued for copyright infringement before he's allowed to prove he isn't infringing on anything.
Regarding immediacy, Conti writes:The Supreme Court decision being cited to put Murphy in the awkward position of having to roll the dice on copyright infringement has nothing to do with copyright. It's all about patents. And it's actually a good decision.
"In this case, the amended complaint does not contain specific, or even approximate, allegations about when plaintiff could begin film production, let alone release the allegedly infringing film, assuming a declaratory judgment is entered in plaintiff’s favor. A dispute 'lacks immediacy' where there are no allegations about 'when, if ever,' the product will be 'used in a manner that could potentially infringe' the intellectual property rights of another. Plaintiff’s nebulous allegations that 'development of the [film] is well underway' and that 'further production efforts could be undertaken in short order' are conclusory and insufficient to show the immediacy required by Article III."
Examining reality, Conti continues:
"At this early stage, the production and release of plaintiff’s film are 'contingent future event[s]' that may not occur 'as anticipated' or 'indeed may not occur at all.' As pleaded by plaintiff, the film project is still in an inchoate stage. Plaintiff does not allege it hired or entered into preliminary agreements with the parties 'integral to the commencement of production'—let alone the release—of a 'major motion picture.'... Plaintiff received 'preliminar[y,] . . . firm interest' in the project from Warner Brothers and Sony. Without allegations of actual commitment or intent to commit—through, for example, letters of intent—plaintiff’s vague, equivocal assertions fail to demonstrate the reality of this dispute. Plaintiff does not allege it entered into finalized, or even preliminary, financing, acquisition, licensing, or distribution agreements with these companies in connection with its potential film."
The latest ruling is in the MedImmune/Genentech case looking at whether or not licensing a patent means you can't challenge its validity. Genentech (and plenty of other patent holders) claimed that once you licensed a patent, you were basically saying that you agreed to its validity, and could no longer challenge it. The lower court agreed. This is problematic in a lot of ways, especially with the rise in patent extortion lawsuits, where it's often cheaper to just license the patent rather than fight it. MedImmune licensed the patent early on, rather than waste money fighting it, but challenged it later on when the patent in question became much more important (and the license much more expensive). With an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court sided with MedImmune, saying that licensing a patent shouldn't preclude challenging that patent's validity. Another small step in the right direction.And yet, here we are, looking at a director being asked to set himself for a lawsuit by the Dille Trust in order to prove he doesn't owe it anything. And in order to do that, he needs to convince a studio to walk across this IP minefield with him -- something no studio in its right mind would ever be willing to do.
There is also a danger that the Custom Code will be lost or stolen. The more often Apple must use the forensic capability this Court is ordering it to create, the more people have to have access to it. The more people who have access to the Custom Code, the more likely it will leak. The software will be valuable to anyone eager to bypass security measures on one of the most secure smartphones on the market. The incentive to steal the Custom Code is huge. The Custom Code would be invaluable to identity thieves, blackmailers, and those engaged in corporate espionage and intellectual property theft, to name a few.Ms. Granick and Ms. Pfefferkorn may not have contemplated demands by defense counsel to examine the software on their own systems and according to their own terms, but their logic applies with equal force to evidentiary challenges to the new code: The risk of the software becoming public increases when it is examined by multiple defense counsel and their experts, on their own systems, with varying levels of technical competency. Fundamentally, then, basic criminal trial processes such as challenges to expert testimony and evidence that results from that testimony based on this new software stand in direct tension with the public interest in the secrecy and security of the source code of the new iPhone unlocking software.
