Re: Florida Pre-paid v. College Savings Bank

On 06/27/1999, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> It appears that there is a natural Jiu-Jitsu that Congress can use
> here, if they are so inclined: simply replace Section 296(a) of the
> Patent Act (and corresponding sections of the Copyright Act and the
> Lanham Act), with provisions stating that no Patent (copyright,
> trademark) owned, exclusively licensed or otherwise controlled,
> directly or indirectly, in whole or in part by a State shall be
> enforceable unless the State has first unequivocally and expressly
> waived sovereign immunity as to all patent, copyright and trademark
> claims.
>
> This converts College Savings Bank into a mere "opt-in" or "opt-out"
> choice for the state -- if the state wishes to assert its portfolio
> of patents, copyrights and related IP (as well as avoid incurring the
> ire of their IP trading partners who are joint owners or licensors),
> it will have to waive its immunity.
>

Would this be an "unconstitutional condition" imposed on the states?

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Mon Jul 05 1999 - 15:29:31 GMT