《法学相关资料合集》（英文版） Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property

Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Propert Licensing Mark a. lemle Introduction I. The Tension Between Article 2B and Intellectual Property A. Article 2B's Expansion of the Scope and Power of Contracts B. Potential Conflicts with Intellectual Property Law aw 2. Copyright Law 4. Trademark law C. Conclusions II. Preemption as a Partial Solution A. The Nature of Intellectual Property Preemption 1. The Basic Nature of Preemption 2. Intellectual Property Preemption a. Patent law b. Copyright Law c. Applying Preemption to Contract Law School of rowe ssri ve saw of5出a油沿F出B是HkH是op 长a上Be品m8是最 Berkeler centee fos aw ea TercaralogwsoGonfesense no Aratinck' va thei a aito sh eomm esearch assistand

Beyond Preemption:The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing Mark A. Lemley1† Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Tension Between Article 2B and Intellectual Property . . . . . . . A. Article 2B’s Expansion of the Scope and Power of Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Potential Conflicts with Intellectual Property Law . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Patent Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Copyright Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Trade Secret Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Trademark Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Preemption as a Partial Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Nature of Intellectual Property Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Basic Nature of Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Intellectual Property Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Patent Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Copyright Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Applying Preemption to Contract Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Copyright © 1999 Mark A. Lemley and California Law Review, Inc. † Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; Visiting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley (Fall 1998); of counsel, Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, Texas. I would like to thank Stephen Barnett, Julie Cohen, Richard Craswell, Robert Denicola, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Paul Goldstein, Robert Gomulkiewicz, Rose Hagan, Paul Heald, Dennis Karjala, Eric Lode, David McGowan, Charles McManis, Rob Merges, Maureen O’Rourke, Malla Pollack, Lloyd Weinreb, and participants in a faculty workshop at Stanford Law School and in the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology’s Conference on Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code for comments on an earlier draft. I would also like to thank Ryan Garcia and Sherri Shaw for research assistance. 111

CALiFORNiA LAW REVIEM TVol. 87: 111 The Limits of Preemption 1. Preemption Lacks Nuance 2. Intellectual Property Rules Arent Always Statuto 4."Contracts Are Different C. Conclusions III. Public Policy Restrictions on Information Contracts A. Copyright Misuse B. Licensing Contracts as Creatures of Federal Law C. State Public Policy Limits on Intellectual Property Contracts D. The Interaction of Public Policy and Article 2B 1. Doctrinal Questions 2. Normative Questions Conclusion

CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 87:111 B. The Limits of Preemption 1. Preemption Lacks Nuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Intellectual Property Rules Aren’t Always Statutory . . . . . . 3. Intellectual Property Rules Aren’t Always Federal . . . . . . . 4. “Contracts Are Different” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Public Policy Restrictions on Information Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Copyright Misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Licensing Contracts as Creatures of Federal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . C. State Public Policy Limits on Intellectual Property Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. The Interaction of Public Policy and Article 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Doctrinal Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Normative Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1999 BEYOND PREEMPTION Beyond Preemption The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing Mark A Lemley Proposed Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B, which would govern transactions in information, would remake the law of intellectual property licensing in a radical way. But federal and state intellectual property laws and policies impose significant limits on the ability of states to change the rules of intellectual property licensing by contrac law. One such limit is preemption, but preemption is unlikely to provide significant protection for the established rules of intellectual property law. Several other doctrines will limit the ability of parties to set their terms by contract, even in the Article 2B world. The first is copyright misuse, which has been applied against restrictive licensing provisions. The second set of doctrines provides that a number of licensing rules are decided as questions of federal, not state, law. The third set of doctrines is a number of state public policies that cannot be overridden by contract. Taken together, these doctrines create a patchwork public policy of intellectual property law that Article 2B cannot alter [LEgislatures, courts, and scholars must consider copyright and patent misuse, and such other issues as federal preemption of state law affecting intellectual property-together with U.C. C. issues if they are to construct a coherent body of transactional rules -Robert m A act and end in to displace copyright it would surely benefit us all if lawmakers took care to apply to 2 .Robert P Merges, Intellectual Property and the Costs of Commercial Exchange: A Review Essav,93Mich.L.Rev.1570,1571-72(199

1999] BEYOND PREEMPTION Beyond Preemption:The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing Mark A. Lemley Proposed Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B, which would govern transactions in information, would remake the law of intellectual property licensing in a radical way. But federal and state intellectual property laws and policies impose significant limits on the ability of states to change the rules of intellectual property licensing by contract law. One such limit is preemption, but preemption is unlikely to provide significant protection for the established rules of intellectual property law. Several other doctrines will limit the ability of parties to set their terms by contract, even in the Article 2B world. The first is copyright misuse, which has been applied against restrictive licensing provisions. The second set of doctrines provides that a number of licensing rules are decided as questions of federal, not state, law. The third set of doctrines is a number of state public policies that cannot be overridden by contract. Taken together, these doctrines create a patchwork public policy of intellectual property law that Article 2B cannot alter. [L]egislatures, courts, and scholars must consider . . . copyright and patent “misuse,” and such other issues as federal preemption of state law affecting intellectual property—together with U.C.C. issues if they are to construct a coherent body of transactional rules. —Robert Merges2 As contract and encryption begin to displace copyright . . . it would surely benefit us all if lawmakers took care to apply to 2 .Robert P. Merges, Intellectual Property and the Costs of Commercial Exchange: A Review Essay, 93 Mich. L. Rev. 1570, 1571-72 (1995)

CALIFORNIA LAW REVIER TVol. 87: 111 these two substitutes the historical norms of copyright -Paul goldstein ntroduction remake is roposed Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B (Article 2B) would he law of software and intellectual property licensing in a radical way Some of the more dramatic changes are apparent, invested the time in reading the rapid succession of 200-plus page drafts.5 But lurking behind the changes Article 2B would impose on the state law of transactions in information is another, more fundamental, shift that is larger than the debate over article 2B itself. article 2b creates a fundamental conflict between the goals of federal and state intellectual property law and the contract law that will govern intellectual property licenses. Under an Article 2B regime, litigation wont be about what the parties agreed to do with intellectual property. It wont even be about the scope or limits of intellectual property law itself. Rather, litigation will be about the limits that intellectual property law and policy impose on state enforcement of contracts that contravene, distort, or ignore that law. To paraphrase Whit Diffie, it will be about the transformation of copyright law from a creator 3.Paul Goldstein, Copyright and Its Substitutes, 1997 Wis. L. Rev. 865, 871 hanges, the reader hs re feed te he ether artiedes in this symposium as wep as inose con tained 1“Re209 discussing chang23ama1asye里maCm 雷器B是 erkeleper sheytus,obb oui Fane o k8}Y ke licensing Trade Secrets Easier( But Inmovation More Difficult), 87 Calif. L Article 2B. 13 Berkel hanges that Article 2B would involve, see J. Thomas Warlick, IV s8r19i9 Licensing and De Facto Copyright Legislation in UCC28, 45 J. Copyright Soc y (UsA) ments on of con e3B+}业18B

CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 87:111 these two substitutes the historical norms of copyright . . . . —Paul Goldstein3 Introduction Proposed Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B (Article 2B)4 would remake the law of software and intellectual property licensing in a radical way. Some of the more dramatic changes are apparent, at least to those who have invested the time in reading the rapid succession of 200-plus page drafts.5 But lurking behind the changes Article 2B would impose on the state law of transactions in information is another, more fundamental, shift that is larger than the debate over Article 2B itself. Article 2B creates a fundamental conflict between the goals of federal and state intellectual property law and the contract law that will govern intellectual property licenses. Under an Article 2B regime, litigation won’t be about what the parties agreed to do with intellectual property. It won’t even be about the scope or limits of intellectual property law itself. Rather, litigation will be about the limits that intellectual property law and policy impose on state enforcement of contracts that contravene, distort, or ignore that law. To paraphrase Whit Diffie, it will be about the transformation of copyright law from a creator’s 3 .Paul Goldstein, Copyright and Its Substitutes, 1997 Wis. L. Rev. 865, 871. 4 .U.C.C. art. 2B (Draft, Aug. 1, 1998). Throughout this Article, I will refer to the August 1, 1998 Draft of Uniform Commercial Code Article 2B as “Article 2B,” with or without the “August Draft” or “draft” designation. References to other versions of the draft will so be noted. The reader should be aware that the draft is a moving target, and should not rely on this Article to identify changes to the draft made after August 1, 1998. The most recent version of the draft can be downloaded from <http://www.lawlib.uh.edu/ucc2b/>. 5 .A few of these changes are discussed infra notes - and accompanying text. For other changes, the reader is referred to the other Articles in this Symposium, as well as those contained in a companion issue of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, especially Peter A. Alces, W(h)ither Warranty: The B(l)oom of Products Liability Theory in Cases of Deficient Software Design, 87 Calif. L. Rev. 269 (1999) (discussing changes in warranty rules); Julie E. Cohen, Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming Dec. 1998) (discussing changes in extra-judicial self-help); Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Do You Want to Know a Trade Secret? How Article 2B Will Make Licensing Trade Secrets Easier (But Innovation More Difficult), 87 Calif. L. Rev. 191, 200-38 (1999) (discussing changes in trade secret law); Jane C. Ginsburg, Authors as “Licensors” of “Informational Rights” Under UCC Article 2B, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming Dec. 1998) (discussing changes in copyright provisions affecting authors). For an overview of the changes that Article 2B would involve, see J. Thomas Warlick, IV, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? Information Licensing and De Facto Copyright Legislation in UCC 2B, 45 J. Copyright Soc’y (USA) 158 (1997). Some commentators assert that Article 2B is not “remaking” anything but is simply codifying existing law. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, The License Is The Product: Comments on the Promise of UCC Article 2B for Software Licensing, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming Dec. 1998) (manuscript at 1, on file with author) (“UCC Article 2B is not new law; it broadly accords with the law that is practiced today in the information and software industries.”). But even Ray Nimmer, Article 2B’s drafter, has apparently abandoned the pretense that the goal of Article 2B is to codify or restate existing law. Instead, Nimmer now promotes the draft as properly embracing change—at least change that “expand[s] the role of contracting.” Raymond T. Nimmer, Breaking Barriers: The Relation Between Contract and Intellectual Property Law, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming Dec. 1998) (manuscript at 1, on file with author); cf. Jessica Litman, The Tales That Article 2B Tells About

1999 BEYOND PREEMPTION rights statute to a consumer protection statute 6 The most obvious way in which these limits will be tested is through ederal preemption, either of particular provisions of state contract law or of rticular contract terms enforced by state courts. A number of commentators have ussed the nature and limits of intellectual property preemption, both in general? and in the specific context of state contract terms. 8 Indeed, some of the contributions to this Symposium address precisely this subject. 9 What one intellectual property preemption, and that the law of preemption is a mess to eral discern from this scholarship is that there are several different approaches to federal I want to suggest something a little different In this Article, I argue that the influence of intellectual property law and policy on contract enforcement is not solely a function of the complex and arcane rules of federal preemption. Three more nuanced doctrines can also influence contract enforcement: (1)copyright misuse (2)federal public policy that requires resolution of at least some intellectual property questions on intellectual property rather than contract terms, and (3) similar mandatory rules of state intellectual property law. These public policy limits certainly won't prevent the enforcement of all license terms, or even of all tted upright, not the eretectmen p, and indeed charged that the 如24出eh oncept of =m:H器m出 mer and improver riot出eBmg四sB 7 See, e. g, Howard B. Abrams, Copyright, Misappropriation, and Preemption: Constitutional Circle, 1974 Sup. Ct. Rev. 81; Paul Heald, Federal Intellectual Economics m joan shepardwlei e, Bono oats 7 informed it %andaor) Feeeranapte paod Heasainunona estriction on the Scope of state Law, 54U. ChL. L. Rev. 1411(1987)thereinafter 8 See, e.g,Dennis S. Karjala, Federal Preemption of shrinkwrap and On-Line Licenses, 22 U C0mN3如 greer iands3u ip itolicgev eder o2 0e gg2) of Sofware License Prohibitions c763R知4 mits of art icle 2b of the uniform commercial code on the future of information Commerce( ke has made a similar point. See Maureen A. O Rourke, Ce resolve nding consistent ther property preemption decisions

1999] BEYOND PREEMPTION rights statute to a consumer protection statute.6 The most obvious way in which these limits will be tested is through federal preemption, either of particular provisions of state contract law or of particular contract terms enforced by state courts. A number of commentators have discussed the nature and limits of intellectual property preemption, both in general7 and in the specific context of state contract terms.8 Indeed, some of the contributions to this Symposium address precisely this subject.9 What one can discern from this scholarship is that there are several different approaches to federal intellectual property preemption, and that the law of preemption is a mess.10 I want to suggest something a little different. In this Article, I argue that the influence of intellectual property law and policy on contract enforcement is not solely a function of the complex and arcane rules of federal preemption. Three more nuanced doctrines can also influence contract enforcement: (1) copyright misuse; (2) federal public policy that requires resolution of at least some intellectual property questions on intellectual property rather than contract terms; and (3) similar mandatory rules of state intellectual property law. These public policy limits certainly won’t prevent the enforcement of all license terms, or even of all 6 .See Whit Diffie, Address at the American Committee for Interoperable Systems Meeting (Feb. 18, 1998). Glynn Lunney has made a similar point. See Glynn Lunney, Protecting Digital Works: Copyright or Contract? (1998) (unpublished manuscript at 3-4, on file with author) (“For preemption to become not only a part of copyright, but in some sense the central part, would require a radical reconception of copyright. We would have to view copyright, not as a means for providing protection, but as a means for limiting the protection permitted.”). Jane Ginsburg has objected to this development, and indeed charged that the entire concept of “user rights” in copyright is loaded and largely undesirable. See Jane C. Ginsburg, Authors and Users in Copyright, 45 J. Copyright Soc’y (USA) 1, 2-3 (1997). Ginsburg makes her argument in part by redefining “user rights” to include only rights to make superseding and not transformative copies. See id. at 3-4. I think that this distinction is unreasonable because it seems both to restrict the concept of “users” of copyrighted works to only the subclass of consumers and to ignore the wholesale elimination of consumer and improver rights that is occurring across the board in copyright today. 7 .See, e.g., Howard B. Abrams, Copyright, Misappropriation, and Preemption: Constitutional and Statutory Limits of State Law Protection, 1983 Sup. Ct. Rev. 509; Paul Goldstein, Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp: Notes on a Closing Circle, 1974 Sup. Ct. Rev. 81; Paul Heald, Federal Intellectual Property Law and the Economics of Preemption, 76 Iowa L. Rev. 959 (1991) [hereinafter Heald, Economics]; John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Bonito Boats: Uninformed but Mandatory Federal Preemption Policy, 1989 Sup. Ct. Rev. 283; Paul Heald, Comment, Unfair Competition and Federal Law: Constitutional Restrictions on the Scope of State Law, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1411 (1987) [hereinafter Heald, Unfair Competition]. 8 .See, e.g., Dennis S. Karjala, Federal Preemption of Shrinkwrap and On-Line Licenses, 22 U. Dayton L. Rev. 511 (1997); Ramona L. Paetzold, Contracts Enlarging a Copyright Owner’s Rights: A Framework for Determining Unenforceability, 68 Neb. L. Rev. 816 (1989); David A. Rice, Public Goods, Private Contract, and Public Policy: Federal Preemption of Software License Prohibitions Against Reverse Engineering, 53 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 543, 602-04 (1992). 9 .See David Nimmer et al., The Metamorphosis of Contract into Expand , 87 Calif. L. Rev. 17, 40-76 (1999); see also J.H. Reichman & Jonathan A. Franklin, Privately Legislated Intellectual Property Rights: The Limits of Article 2B of the U.C.C., Address Before the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology’s Conference, Intellectual Property and Contract Law for the Information Age: The Impact of Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code on the Future of Information and Commerce (Apr. 24, 1998). 10 .Maureen O’Rourke has made a similar point. See Maureen A. O’Rourke, Copyright Preemption After the ProCD Case: A Market-Based Approach , 12 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 53, 76 (1997) (“The confusion and inconsistency of preemption law makes preemption issues notoriously difficult to resolve.”). But see Heald, Economics, supra note , at 959 (finding consistent themes in intellectual property preemption decisions)