OASIS V. WEST -- WEST GETTING ADVICE FROM AND GIVING ADVICE TO THE
COURTS IN MINNESOTA?
West, in an apparent right turn away from a long time Information
Industries Association (IIA) position, in argument before a Minnesota
District Court on April 26, 1996, in Oasis v. West, is now taking the
position THAT STATE GOVERNMENTS MAY COPYRIGHT CASE LAW REPORTS.
This is what was said by West's counsel, and this may be found on
paged 42-43 of the transcript of the argument filed with the court:
"Now, a couple of points that also need to be rebutted, because they
are simply misleading of the Court. Donna Bergsgaard testified that
West can start paginate to U.S. Reports. Well, of course it can,
because Section 105 of Copyright Act states specifically that the
federal government cannot have a copyright. U.S. Reports, the entire
publication, is a publication of the federal government. And as such
every word in it is in the public domain by federal statute."
"There is no corresponding provision in the Copyright Act for the
works created by states. States by acknowledgment and agreement of
all commentators and all judicial decisions can hold copyrights."
West apparently is taking this position on state copyright because it
is appearing to argue that Florida assigned to West the right to
copyright the arrangement of cases, or something like that. To this
observer, West has taken a big step away from its cohorts in the IIA
who adamantly argue that states may not copyright cases and statutes.
But there it is.
MATTHEW BENDER & HYPERLAW V. WEST -- NEW YORK -- WHERE OASIS FEARS TO
TREAD, MATTHEW BENDER SHOULD HAVE NO FEAR:
Back in New York, West is still arguing that Matthew Bender & Co. had
no reasonable basis to fear being sued were Matthew Bender to use
West internal page numbers -- and today West filed a motion for
reconsideration of Judge Martin's May 1 opinion and a request for
certification for interlocutory appeal. Interestingly, West still is
not explaining to the New York federal court why Oasis in the
Minnesota federal courts had a reasonable basis for apprehension, and
thus meets the constitutional standards of case or controversy, but
Matthew Bender does not meet those constitutional standards in the
New York federal courts. The only difference we can see for sure is
that Bender had far greater objective reasons for apprehension than
Oasis to being sued by West, not less. The May 1 opinion and the May
13 West motion are on the HyperLaw web site ... see below.
Proves again that consistency is the hobgoblin of small and confused
minds (sic).
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Alan D. Sugarman Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM ::
:: President Opinions of US Courts of Appeals ::
:: 1993 to Date - All Circuits ::
:: HyperLaw, Inc. Registered Trademark ::
:: P.O. Box 1176 DO NOT SHORT CIRCUIT YOUR CLIENTS ::
:: New York, NY 10023 ::
:: sugarman@hyperlaw.com 212-787-2812 212-496-4138(fax) ::
:: ::
:: http://www.hyperlaw.com ::
:: ::
:: /// /// /// [R] ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: //////////////// /// ::
:: //////////////// /// ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: /// /// /////////// ::
:: /// /// /////////// ::
:: ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:13 PST