John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> Wasn't the gravamen of the 7th Circuit decision that contract rights
> were not the "rights" that the preemption clause referred to? The 7th
> Circuit seemed to say that preemption only applied to rights created
> by state law (statutory or common) not contract rights.
>
> Misappropiation is not usually a contract right -- it is a statutory
> or common law right.
>
> Perhaps I should reread the 7th Circuit decision.
Or perhaps I should. Maybe my reference to ProCD wasn't appropriate to this specific thread after all.
But preemption refers to claims "equivalent to copyright." Claims arising from contract, statute, or common law can generally escape preemption if they are not "equivalent to copyright." In the present case, a claim for misappropriation of facts under a "hot news" theory is not "equivalent to copyright" because there is no claim for copyright infringement with respect to facts. Thus a misappropriation claim of this kind should escape preemption. I think.
Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com>
Received on Fri May 30 1997 - 17:09:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT