Copyright Law Is Different Sample Clauses

Copyright Law Is Different. Seagate’s resort to the “work for hire” provision of the Copyright Act is also wrong. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b), The two forms of intellectual property are quite different and are treated so in law. In general, “patents and copyrights do not entail the same exchange.” Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 537 U.S. 186, 216 (2003). “The disclosure required by the Patent Act is ‘the quid pro quo of the right to exclude.’ ” J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, 534 U.S. 124, 142 (2001) (quoting Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 484 (1974)). “For the author seeking copyright protection, in contrast, disclosure is the desired objective, not something exacted from the author in exchange for the copyright.” Xxxxxx, 537 U.S. at 216-17. Given these fundamental differences, copyright law is a vaporous comparator. Anyway, the Copyright Act is just that, a congressional enactment. Congress did not include anything like Section 201(b) in the Patent Act, and the Federal Circuit should not have jumped into that breach without a measured consideration of the consequences. As this Court has stressed “[t]he judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme” in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984). But the most important difference is that FilmTec eliminates the explicit Section 256 statutory right to correct patent inventorship, a right of “attribution” the Copyright Act does not contain, except to the limited extent of the visual arts.8 Thus, a copyright title regime should not be extended to patents.