“A copyright owner grants a nonexclusive license when the owner authorizes another person or institution to exercise one or more of the rights belonging to the owner under the copyright on a shared basis.” (Patent, Copyright and Trademark. Richard Stim. Page 272)
As for the ruling, the question of whether the architectural firm granted the developer a non-exclusive license to use its copyright in the architectural designs formed a backdrop to the case. Even if the developer were to obtain a copy of the designs, it would not be able to start building without committing copyright infringement unless the Court were to find that it was granted an implied non-exclusive license. The architectural firm argued that it did not intend to grant an implied license that would permit the developer to use the designs after it was no longer involved in the construction. The developer claimed that the entire construction project would be delayed, if not shut down, without the plans. (Wereldhave USA-San Antonio, L.P. v. Peter Fillat Architects, Inc., 2010 WL 419388 (D. Md. 2009)) My opinion of the ruling is that it’s very confusing. Ultimately I think that the architectural firm was at fault for not allowing the developer access to the designs when they needed each other’s help anyway. I think it is the architecture firm’s job to make sure everything goes as planned and it seemed like they weren’t as professional as they shouldve been. Also I realized that to actually win a case like this, you would definitely need a good patent attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment