Streamcast and Grokster

LANDMARK CASE 24.1 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, Ltd.,

Case Questions

1. Why was the Court so concerned about the Open

Nap program offered by StreamCast and Grokster?

2. Why do you think the Court refused to apply the

Sony exception in this case?

1. Well, the case shows that both parties, StreamCast and Grokster, created the program that does the same thing in a different way. It is somewhat called "to design around a patent" which means to create an invention that does the same thing in a different way, so as not to infringe on the patent. On the other hand, both parties initially distributed their software products through Napster, and even they introduced their new products to Napster users. There is a rule which says if an invention is used within the twenty year disclosure of the patent without permission from the creator, the infringer can be sued for tort infringement. Even if a similar, but not identical, product is used or invented, the infringer may still be liable for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents states that if the parts of an invention are seen as equivalent to that of a patented invention, even if they are not identical, they may be liable.In addition, I think that Napster should have registered its work with the United States Copyright Office for infringement purposes. By registering the work with the Copyright Office, the holder of the copyright, Napster, then has the right to file a lawsuit for infringement on its work. Because copyrights enable the author of a piece of work to maintain exclusive rights over his/her work for a limited amount of time. Therefore, anyone who violates one of the exclusive copyright laws may be liable for infringement. In this case, Grokster's name is apparently derived from Napsters, it too initially offered an OpenNap program, its software's function is comparable to Napster's, and it also attempted to divert queries for Napster onto its own Web Site. So Grokster was able to copy enough material from the copyrighted work. The key point is a copyright infringement can also include the public distribution of the copyrighted work. And, If both parties credited that author in their work, they would not be liable for infringement.

2. Well, the Court found out that the lower courts had misapplied the Sony exception because there was evidence that Grokster had intentionally caused to copyright infringement via the use of their software.But Sony was awarded with the fair use exception. The court considers some facts when awarding a party with this exception. The factors include the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the importance and amount of the part used, and the effects

...