Veeck v. SBCCI en banc briefs

I represent Peter Veeck in a case which was discussed at some length on this list earlier in the year. As you may know, the panel found that while, as a general rule, laws are in the public domain as a matter of due process, the public interest in having laws such as building codes written by organizations such as SBCCI is so great that it was not going to apply that rationale in this case. It also held that the merger doctrine requires a balancing of public interests, and does not apply, here.

That opinion was vacated and the matter will be argued before the court, en banc, on January 23rd. The issues are well defined in the briefs of the parties and amici, which are at
<http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr/filings.htm>. Pete has posted the
rest of the materials relating to the case at
<http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr/>.

Aside from the legal issues, are the policy concerns, which the panel obviously found most persuasive. Each side in the litigation has posed a worst case senario should the other prevail. Veeck argues that all lobbyists will be able to claim copyright in laws based upon their proposals; while SBCCI warns that all standards referenced in codes adopted as law will, likewise, become merged into ideas with only one authoritative expression, and that loss of copyright will mean loss of the ability to fund the ngo's good works, leading to their extinction.

I am sure the court will want to know from Veeck how the effect of a ruling in his favor can be limited to adopted laws without also affecting standards referenced in such works. And, if the rule can not be so limited, why such result is not bad (i.e. is, on balance, good for the public)?

Your thoughts on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Received on Sun Dec 23 2001 - 06:09:02 GMT