Comments on: a very well reasoned CFC decision

By: Patrick Ryan

Patrick Ryan — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:27:36 +0000

In Eldred v. Reno the Dist. Ct. summarily dismissed the extension of the public-trust doctrine by narrowly construing it as only applying to navigable waters (I disagree, the public-trust doctrine is much broader). But I'd love to know if anyone has any details as to why the public-trust argument was not pursued at the S. Ct. level (unless I missed something, I believe it was abandoned). In retrospect I think this was an excellent decision, since the S. Ct. was clearly result-bound in Eldred and it leaves the public-trust doctrine open to other applications. Does anyone have a view on this?

By: David Woycechowsky

David Woycechowsky — Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:14:28 +0000

I wonder if the Commerce Clause has any bearing on the Patent Clause claim that has been allowed to proceed.

It seems kind of weird if Congress had less authority with respect to patent owners than it does with respect that poor farmer in the Wickard case.

By: James Day

James Day — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:05:43 +0000

There are some well drawn arguments elsewhere in the decision but one of the more intersting statements for more mundane IP discussions counters the arguments of those who believe that patents and copyright monopolies are an inherent right rather than a privilege:

"Defendant reiterates its argument that maintenance fees are a condition which plaintiff must satisfy to sustain the privilege of a patent. The court agrees with defendant."

By: lessig

lessig — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:25:09 +0000

sorry, fixed.

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:06:37 +0000

This should work.

-kd

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:42:40 +0000

Professor, the link has some extraneous stuff on the end and thus does not work...