National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc.

Last updated

National Basketball Assoc. v. Motorola
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameThe National Basketball Association and NBA Properties, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Motorola, Inc., doing business as SportsTrax, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems, Inc., doing business as Stats, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
DecidedJan 30 1997
Holding
NBA's claim for misappropriation was dismissed and the Appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the NBA's claim for false advertising.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, Ralph K. Winter, Jr., and Frank Altimari, Circuit Judges
Keywords
Misappropriation, Hot news

National Basketball Association v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the National Basketball Association (NBA) purported that Motorola and STATS infringed the NBA's copyright on the broadcast of games and misappropriated the data presented on the SportsTrax pager.

Contents

Background

Motorola manufactured and marketed the SportsTrax paging device which uses game information supplied by Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems ("STATS"). It offers four modes of operation: "current," "statistics," "final scores," and "demonstration." STATS compiled its scores and statistics by employing people to listen or watch the games, then enter the scores on the computer which transmits the scores to STATS' on-line service, to be sent out to anyone using a SportsTrax pager. [1]

In 1996, the National Basketball Association won in a federal Manhattan court the exclusive rights to transmit scores. [2] The NBA claimed that Motorola infringed on the NBA through information misappropriation of the basketball (and baseball) games by arguing that the factual data about the game represents the overall value of the game. [2] The second circuit court of appeals addressed whether the 1976 copyright act preempted the state-law misappropriation claim. [3]

The NBA asserted 6 claims:

  1. unfair competition by misappropriation,
  2. false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.   § 1125(a),
  3. false representation of origin under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
  4. state and common law unfair competition by false advertising and false designation of origin,
  5. federal copyright infringement and
  6. unlawful interception of communications under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.   § 605.

New York state law misappropriation claim

Due to the case involving the International News Service (INS) and the Associated Press (AP) in 1918, New York created a misappropriation law. International News Service v. Associated Press was one of the early cases addressing the issue raised by technological advances, where the International News Service directly lifted factual stories from AP bulletins and wired them to newspapers. [4]

Opinion of the Court

The district court dismissed all of the NBA's claims except the first - misappropriation under New York Law. The court also dismissed the counterclaim by Motorola that the NBA unlawfully interfered with Motorola's contractual sponsorship by four individual NBA teams.

The Second Circuit appellate court struck down the NBA's assertion that the games are copyrighted. "Sports events are not 'authored' in any common sense of the word" [4] (21), arguing that if copyright was open to sporting events, "the inventor of the T-formation in football" [4] would be able to control all uses of the T-formation and could cause problems with the prosperity of the sport.

The district court's injunction was based on its conclusions that the defendants had unlawfully misappropriated the NBA's property rights in its games, under New York law. However, the Second Circuit found that "the district court concluded that the NBA's misappropriation claim was not preempted because... the subject matter requirement was not met"(39). [4] The Second Circuit court argued that the copyright act should not be used to distinguish between copyright infringement and state-law misappropriation.

The Court noted that the broadcasts of the NBA games, not the games themselves, are entitled to copyright protection. The Copyright Act of 1909 was amended in 1976 specifically to protect the broadcast and meet the requirement that the original work of authorship be "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" 17 U.S.C.   § 102(a).

The district court held that Motorola and STATS did not infringe NBA's copyright because only facts from the broadcasts, not the broadcasts themselves were transmitted. The Second Circuit Court agreed with the district court's argument that the "[d]efendants provide purely factual information which any patron of an NBA game could acquire from the arena without any involvement from the director, cameramen, or others who contribute to the originality of the broadcast" [939 F. Supp. at 1094].

State law misappropriation claim

The New York hot news misappropriation developed out of International News Service v. Associated Press , a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court case. [3] Great Britain prohibited INS reporters because INS's owner, William Randolph Hearst, was an outspoken critic of the allies and an open supporter of the Germans. In order to keep INS newspapers up to date with the latest information from the war, the INS would obtain the factual data from east coast AP news articles, then would send it out to subscribers on the west coast, occasionally beating the AP news stories. [3] In order to deal with this, the Supreme court "crafted a new variant of the common law tort of misappropriation" called the "hot news" doctrine.

New York sought to apply ethical standards to the INS case and created its own body of misappropriation law. [4] However, the Second Circuit Court found that the New York misappropriation law "goes well beyond the 'hot news' claims and is preempted". [4] The court claimed that to survive a "hot news" INS-like claim, several elements were required: the plaintiff generates the information at a cost; the information is time-sensitive; the defendant is free riding off the plaintiff's efforts; and the defendant is in direct competition with a product or service offered by the plaintiffs, and in doing so, enables others to free ride off the efforts of the plaintiffs. [4]

Reaction

The Second Circuit Court dismissed the misappropriation claim and affirmed the district court's dismissal of NBA's claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States. In other words, the Act is the primary statutory foundation of United States trademark law at the federal level. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law: a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>Sega v. Accolade</i> 1992 American court case

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied American intellectual property law to the reverse engineering of computer software. Stemming from the publishing of several Sega Genesis games by video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled Genesis software in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega, the case involved several overlapping issues, including the scope of copyright, permissible uses for trademarks, and the scope of the fair use doctrine for computer code.

<i>Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.</i>

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317, was a U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit case involving Harold L. Bowers and Baystate Technologies over patent infringement, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. In the case, the court found that Baystate had breached their contract by reverse engineering Bower's program, something expressly prohibited by a shrink wrap license that Baystate entered into upon purchasing a copy of Bower's software. This case is notable for establishing that license agreements can preempt fair use rights as well as expand the rights of copyright holders beyond those codified in US federal law.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Ho v. Taflove</i> U.S. Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data

Ho v. Taflove is a Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a 2009 decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois holding that the expression of ideas can be copyrighted but not the ideas themselves.

<i>Monty Python v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.</i> 1976 United States court case

Monty Python v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. was a case where the British comedy group Monty Python claimed that the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) had violated their copyright and caused damage to their artistic reputation by broadcasting drastically edited versions of several of their shows. An appeals court found in favor of Monty Python, directing a ban of further broadcasts by ABC on the basis of violation of the Lanham Act, which could provide protection in the United States similar to that provided by moral rights in Europe, and gave the opinion that the group's copyright had probably also been infringed.

<i>Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.</i> United States intellectual property law case

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. is an intellectual property law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the previous ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Brown Bag Software sued Symantec Corporation and John L. Friend, an individual software developer for Softworks Development, for copyright infringement and several state law claims regarding the similarity of Symantec Corporation's and Brown Bag Software's computer outlining programs.

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut. As of March 28, 2019, the library is included due to Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

<i>Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act.

<i>Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc.</i>

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc., 469 F.3d 348, is a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in which Mummagraphics, Inc. is sued by Omega World Travel, Inc. (Omega) and Cruise.com after Mummagraphic alleged that they received 11 commercial e-mail messages in violation of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act of 2003 as well as Oklahoma state law. In the initial filing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had awarded summary judgment to Omega on all of Mummagraphics' claims finding that the commercial emails from Omega did not violate the CAN-SPAM Act, and that the CAN-SPAM Act preempted Oklahoma state law. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The misappropriation doctrine is a U.S. legal theory conferring a "quasi-property right" on a person who invests "labor, skill, and money" to create an intangible asset. The right operates against another person "endeavoring to reap where it has not sown" by "misappropriating" the value of the asset. The quoted language and the legal principle come from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

  1. ↑ "Sports Service Battles N.B.A In Round Two - NYTimes.com". The New York Times. 21 October 1996. Retrieved on 2010-9-28.
  2. 1 2 "Technical Foul: The NBA double Dribbles on intellectual property", Wired, Jan 1997. Retrieved on 2010-9-27.
  3. 1 2 3 "Whats the law around aggregating news online?". Retrieved on 2010-9-28
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "NBA v. Motorola and STATS". Retrieved on 2010-9-27
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.