Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Agoraphilia
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: AgoraphiliaDiscouraging Just Enough Infringement
By Tom W. Bell and Glen Whitman

[The above figure] surely offers too sanguine a view of the effects of copyright infringement, however. Without the limitations imposed by copyright law, some consumers who would otherwise willingly pay for authorized uses might instead opt to save their money by joining the unpaying masses of unauthorized users. The resulting exodus, from respecting copyright to infringing it, would risk decreasing the revenues afforded by copyright, bringing about the policy tragedy portrayed [earlier].
How does copyright law dispel that, the specter of copyism? By imposing high marginal costs on infringing uses of protected works. Absent the Copyright Act, and especially in digital works, an infringer would generally face the same low marginal reproduction costs as a copyright holder. Thanks to the Copyright Act, an infringer might have to pay actual or statutory damages, lost profits, costs, and/or attorney's fees to a copyright holder for every unauthorized use.
How high should lawmakers set the marginal costs of infringement? We wouldn't want them to under-deter it, lest the specter of copyism become all too real. Nor would we want them to overdo it, given that a modest level of infringement can deliver social gains. Theory suggests that lawmakers should set the marginal costs of infringement, taking into account that only some infringing uses get caught and litigated, just high enough to ensure that authorized users will have no incentive to opt for paying less than enough to sustain authorship. [The figure below] illustrates.

So, at least, goes copyright in theory. In practice, as discussed in chapter 4, lawmakers lack both the information and incentives to calibrate copyright policy so precisely. These economic models thus only explain how copyright law should work?not how it does work.
[NB: The above text comes from chapter 1, § C.3 of my draft book, Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good. I will soon upload a PDF of the entire chapter, including footnotes. I welcome your comments.]
[Crossposted to Intellectual Privilege and The Technology Liberation Front.]
Full post as published by Agoraphilia on December 25, 2007 (boomark / email).
The Princeton Review
$2.6 million settlement reached in patent infringement case.
Spike Lee and Showtime
Settlement reached in script copyright infringement lawsuit.
Trade Secrets
Razorsight agreed to pay $4.5 million settlement in infringement lawsuit.
Underground Piping
Insituform Technologies awarded $4.5 million patent infringement settlement.
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
DNA Products
Agilent Technologies pays undisclosed patent infringement settlement to Invitrogen Corporation.

Collecting Evidence of Infringement
New District of Delaware Filings 2008
New District of Delaware Filings
Contributory infringement of patents: a vexed area of law







