Re: Contributory Infringement

My keyboard and lack of manual dexterity got the best of me again. In my response below, at one point I said " Almost he whole discussion in Sony, with the objective of determining whether manufacturers of VCRs could be liable as direct infringers..."

Obviously, I meant to say "with the objective of determining whether manufacturers of VCRs could be liable as *contributory* infringers..."

Sorry about the goof.

John Allison
<allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu>

On 9/25/98, John Allison <allisonj[_at_]utexas.mail.edu> wrote:
>
> On 9/24/98, Bob Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
> >
> > I seem to recall reading somewhere that you can't bring a claim of
> > contributory infringement unless there is also a direct infringement.
> > But I can't find it now, and I'm beginning to wonder if I just made it
> > up. Does anyone on the list know whether "contributory infringement"
> > constitutes a claim in its own right, or must be attached to a claim
> > of direct infringement? It seems evident to me that there can't be a
> > contributory infringement unless there is a direct infringement; but I
> > remember cases like the Sony Betamax case, where it was claimed that
> > distribution of VCRs contributed to infringement, but I don't believe
> > any end users were actually sued for direct infringement. So the
> > questions are:
> >
> > (a) Can you make a claim for contributory infringement alone?
>
> In Sony v. Universal, I don't believe that any of the alleged direct
> infringers (consumers) were named as defendants.
>
> > (b) If not, is it sufficient merely to show that there is or could be
> > a direct infringement? or
> >
> > (c) Do you have to actually name a direct infringement defendant in
> > order to bring an action against a contributory infringement
> > defendant?
>
> Again, my recollection of Sony is that indivdual direct infringers
> were not named anywhere, but there had to be proof that such direct
> infringers did exist. Almost he whole discussion in Sony, with the
> objective of determining whether manufacturers of VCRs could be liable
> as direct infringers, focused on whether this obvisously existing group
> of alleged direct infringers could make any substantial noninfringing
> use of the VCRs. The Court's discussion made it clear that there were
> a number of ways in which consumers could use VCRs in an infringing
> manner, but that there was at least one substantial noninfringing use
> (time-shifting for one-time only viewing was fair use). Then, of
> course, after Sony, a big-time noninfringing use developed in the
> market--video rentals.
Received on Sat Sep 26 1998 - 14:36:48 GMT