[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Hearing on "Sovereign Immunity and the Protection of Intellectual Property"
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hearing on "Sovereign Immunity and the Protection of Intellectual Property"
- From: "Jeremy A Erwin" <jerwin(at)gmu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:55:37 -0500
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Saturday, February 16, 2002, at 12:22 PM, Ole Craig wrote:
> On 02/16/02 at 03:14, 'twas brillig and Jeremy A Erwin scrobe:
>> On Saturday, February 16, 2002, at 02:26 AM, Larry Blunk wrote:
>>> The US Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing titled
>>> "Sovereign Immunity and the Protection of Intellectual Property" for
>>> Feb 27 at 10:00AM. Further details can be found at
>>> Although it's not entirely clear what will be discussed at this
>>> hearing, I suspect the DeCSS and Elcomsoft cases will likely
>>> be brought up.
>> IIRC, sovereign immunity can also apply to states. If a state wanted to
>> be very nice to it's University employees, educational use could be
>> immune from copyright lawsuits..., as a state can only be sued in it's
>> own courts, etc.
> <bitter laugh> Guess I'm SOL, then.
> Boston pols seem to be doing their damndest to use the state
> university system and its employees for toilet paper. (Most of them
> went to private schools, and can't begin to understand why they should
> fund UMass when there're all these great schools in and around
> Cambridge, like Harvard, BC, MIT, BU, &etc..)
Don't have access to Lexis right now, but these cites may be of interest
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)
The Eleventh Amendment prevents Congress from authorizing suits by
Indian tribes against States to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to
the Indian Commerce Clause.
"In overruling Union Gas today, we reconfirm that the background
principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment
is not so ephemeral as to dissipate when the subject of the suit is an
area, like the regulation of Indian commerce, that is under the
exclusive control of the Federal Government. Even when the Constitution
vests in Congress complete law-making authority over a particular area,
the Eleventh Amendment prevents congressional authorization of suits by
private parties against unconsenting States"
College Savings Bank v. Florida
"The Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA), 106 Stat. 3567, subjects
the States to suits brought under §43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946
(Lanham Act) for false and misleading advertising, 60 Stat. 441, 15
U. S. C. §1125(a). The question presented in this case is whether that
provision is effective to permit suit against a State for its alleged
misrepresentation of its own product--either because the TRCA effects a
constitutionally permissible abrogation of state sovereign immunity, or
because the TRCA operates as an invitation to waiver of such immunity
which is automatically accepted by a State's engaging in the activities
regulated by the Lanham Act.