Test Book for IP Prof. Parchomofsky

בס"ד

Test Book for IP – Prof. Parchomofsky

1) Theory: Rational Behind IP:

1. Labor – John Locke תיאוריית ה"עמל"

1)Man Owns Himself

2)Ownership extends to what man creates

3)Effort/Change/Improvement = Ownership

-Forbiddent to Waist

-Must leave enough of the resource for others

- Didn’t Apply this to IP but later students did

Criticism:

1)Labor Theory is based on idea of “unlimited resources”

2)Isn’t a perfect application to IP – In IP one needs “מקוריות” and "קיבוע". This doesn’t seem exactly consistent with "עמל"

1. תיאוריית האישיותHegel:

1. The internal man strives to express itself externally and actively
2. External Physical Material is necessary to fullfil that purpose
3. Law comes to help with that need!

-Did Apply this to IP: IP generally comes to protect one’s creativity. One may not sacrifice זכויות מוסריות it is a reflection of the individual.

Criticism:

1)It is true that the law requires מקוריות and that’s perfect for Hagel. But the law also protects יצירה פונקיונאלית (computer program) which is not necessarily creative and personal!

3. תוצאתניות או תאולתניות - utilitarianism – The Incentive Theory (Interlego)

Utilitarianism –the ultimate public good and the ends are all that are important

Incentive Theory - As said in the US Const. – IP comes to enrich society.

This approach seeks to increase Public Gods – טובין ציבורין

1. Good: non-physical goods can serve the public because an unlimited amount of users can co-use
2. Bad: Expensive to prevent users who aren’t paying

Law comes bec:very expensive to make but afterwards is cheap. There is large risk. Thus, if no loaw then people won’t make IP! Law encourages pple to make IP

Criticism:

1. People create for fame and not just money
2. Creation is part of human nature
3. Alturism
4. Academic Advancement
5. Ideology (Wikipedia)

Answer to Critism

1. Some times creation is for other goods – advertsising etc.
2. There won’t be enough – IP encourages a healthy abundance
3. Higher Quality of IP

מקוירות: A minimal amount of Originality

פס"ד דוד הכי טוב – Judge שפירא: You can’t CR a name

סטרוסקי נ' וויטמן (קביעת מינימום מקוריות)– doesn’t need to be “NEW” but cannot be completely Copied”. There needs to reflect MINIMAL מקוריות and effort.

Q: Why minimumמקוריות?

A1: (הרשקוב נ' אורבוך) Nothing is new and everything is copied anyway! (Parcho: Bad Reason)

A2: עלויות העלאת הסף: In Patents the רף is very high – the originator must prove originality. This is very expensive but it is worth it in Patents which make tonz of money. It is too expensive in CR. Plus there is unlimited!

ת"א (הרצליה) 1010/88 נפסק כי ביטוי "הסיידר לא נופל מהעץ" - מוגן.

ת"א (ת"א) 59229/96 אקו"ם נ. פלד"אין סוסים שמדברים עברית"- מוגן.

ת"א (ת"א) 2378/98 אקו"ם נ. ראובניפרידמן "הופה הולה הולה הולה הופה"- מוגן.

בארה"ב בתי המשפט עשו עבודה טובה יותר ולא הגנו על כ"כ הרבה סיסמאות. החריג ("ET phone home")

פס"ד סטרוסקי נ' וטימן – Miminal Creativity Needed

Q: PR firm סטרוסקי was hired by וטימן and created a simple sign with a, Flower,Line, Ice CreamCone, and the Vitman name. Vitman then hired another PR firm and the other PR firm used the same sign. סטרוסקי had CR rights to the re-used sign.

A: ש' נתניהו: even a simple combination of already existing elements gets CR protections.

Exceptions to SUCH little מקוריות

Q: A neurologist advertised on his website – "טפל בכאב ראש בראש...ובראשונה" and A medicine company advertised; IMEX בראש ובראשונה.

A: דליה מרקס הומצ'יק:In this sentence there isn’t any level of “יצירתיות” but rather it just takes words and puts them together!

-There is no real difference between any of the above sayings. It is just that here the Judge wanted to SAFEGUARD the language!

-Parchomovsky: There should be a minimum Word limit for CR! דליה did the right thing!

MORE: Exceptions to the Minimal Creativity Requirement for CR

- Names – you can’t CR a nickname of a real person. Of an imaginary character you are allowed to CR (דוד הכי טוב)

- Basic Geometric Shapes alone are not allowed. Creative combo is allowed: (סטרוסקי נ' ויטמן)

- Single words or phrases

Effort השקעה– is effort alone enough to grant CP

England – YES

US – NO:

Feist V RURAD

Q: Feist wanted to make a big Telephone Book by combining all the little ones. All little ones agreed to sell their names except for Rurad. They copied the names anyway!

A: US SUPREME COURT: even thought there was much EFFORT there was no CREATIVITY so Rrads’ original book didn’t ever have a copyright!

Israel –השקעה = תנאי לזכות בהגנה + ומשמש ראייה

Interlego – adopts US doctrine: מאמץ in addition to מקוריות

Q: Changed Lego Pieces with the exact same function and pretty much the same look!

A:שמגר: Effort is a condition of CR but it needs to come along with minimal Creativity.

פס"ד סטרוסקי נ' וויטמן – Judge נתניהו says: מאמץ is a pre-condition but may be extremely צנוע

פס"ד Kimron

Q: Kimorn put together the unreadable Kumran מגילות and before he published it someone else published it claiming that it belongs to the whole world and not one man!

A: טירקל:Kimron worked very hard on technical labor. The technical labor can משמש ראייה to יצירתיות: “The thousands of hours of technical work show Creativity”

-Criticism:

• Didn’t create something new but deciphered something existing
• Merger (דוק האיחוד) – when there is only one or very few ways to express an idea then the creative expression dosen’t get CR.
• They use שימוש הוגן but it’s a bad amorphous doctrine
• The texts are universal – no one’s belongings.
• The תמריץ theory doesn’t apply – every Academic would pay to do this
• קימרון will make money even without having total CR of the Kimran Megilot

פס"ד הרשקו נ' אורבך (רעיון מול ביטוי) – man wanted CR on math book and education methods! But they are ideas!

A: ש' לוין: אין לקבוע מסמרות בעניין רעיון מול ביטוי. Very Much מקוריות helps determine something as an expression opposed to idea.

Idea and Expression – Only a concrete expression of an idea is worthy of CR. Not Ideas Alone!

Difference between Idea and Expression

פס"ד קסון נ' טבע

Q: Teva copied a “Morning and Night” idea and incorporated it into their medicine packaging

A: Only the specific graphics of the original copied package is protected. Not the idea.

פס"ד Struclza v. untied arab emirates

Q: Someone copied a building designed with purely OrientalMotifs.

A: A specific building is protected but not the Motifs – everyone can enjoy and use ideas and styles

קיבוע Expression needs to be Physical! דרישת קיבוע (ס' 4 לזכויות יוצרים)

-A there must be a "חזות ממשית" for something to be guarded through IP law.

-History: שמגר in Interlego. And then turned into the new law Stat. 4

Justifications:

1)Clarity: וודאות במקרים של הפרה

2)מעיד on intent to have protection?

3)פומביות

4)Helps Determine Time of Protection

5)Socially – ensures that things won’t disappear.

6)Economically – creates markets with income and competition for society

פס"ד ענבר נ' יעקובי

Q: Inbar studied at IDC Tort law from Yaakovi. Inbar said it was all in verbal lectures and didn’t have קיבוע (this was before the new law from Interlego which requires קיבוע)

A: Supreme Court: Of course there was קיבוע! All the Prof. Notes, Slides, etc.

Reasons Not to Protect Ideas

1. Socially Unwanted – too heavy a price on others – everyone should be allowed to come up with ideas.
2. Impossible to Prove
3. Encourages People to act on their ideas!

תהליך מול יצירהProcess vs Creation – only creations in CR processes, equations, procedures, all in Patents

Baker vs. Selden

Q: Invented a great method for managing accounts. Wrote a book with all the charts in it and descriptions. The Charts were copied and distributed.

A: The particular book is Protected but only patents can protect Mathematical Methods! (The court saw this as a way to get around paying for patents and didn’t wanna encourage this!)

פס"ד הרשקו נ' אברבוך– Israeli case like Baker with different outcome!

Q: A book was written witי very effective ways to teach kids math – שיטת הבידוד – and it was similarly copied in another math education book.

A: הש' לוין: has very difficult time. She says אין לקבוע מסמרות about when it’s a מתי זה רעיון ומתי זה יישום של רעיון. In this case there was enough originality and creativity – רצועות המאה – to warrant protection.

-Parchomovsky: Not a good system! In Patents one gets protection for יישום (applications and procedures) but in CR its only on Expressions! This is a bad pesak!

Limits of CR

-אין הגנה על נוסחאות מטמטיות

-Facts or History

DreamWorks and Steven Spielburg Case –

Q: a movie was based on a book.

A: The book was meant as history of someone’s life and you can’t CR historical facts.

Mosad Nazzi Hunter Case

Q: HollandDocumentary interviewed a Mossad agent. A writer, before the movie was put to public, wrote down the entire interview as done by the movie produce and as shown in the film. Defense: It is Historical Facts!

A: This is different than other cases because the exact questions asked by the interview and the circumstances were creative and original.

דוקטרינת האיחוד

In US this is a recognized doctrine – if there is only a single way to express an idea than that expression doesn’t get CR.

Morissay vs. Procter

Q: The rules of a sale were copied.

A: You can’t CR rules and conditions of a sale. The sale works only one way and has basically only one set of rational rules. Its not right to give a CR.

דוק' איחוד בישראלMerger in Israel

שמגר באינטרלגו + הש' צור במאיר נ' קנרסברה שהדוק' חלה גם על יצירות ספרותיות – reason to believe it applies in Israel! However, it is not black and white like it is in the US. In Israel, it was recognized as a way to determine the level of copying which constitutes a violation:

פס"ד מאיר נ' קנר

Q: Two Dating Online Sites where the 2nd uses almost the same Questionnaire as the 1st.

A: ש' צורThe 1st is entitled to CR. 1) מקוריות (he based his questionnaire on older ones but changed them and combined them in order to fullfill the minimal מקוריות requirements) 2) השקעה Put Effort into it!

Fundamentally entitled to CR BUT NEVERTHELESS – since there aren’t really other good ways to do make such questionnaires then he doesn’t have Legal Protection!

- הש' צור makes a rule: The Fewer Ways of Presenting an Idea then the Greater Level of specific copying is needed for one to be accused of הפרה CR.

-Parcho: TZUR is very smart! She realizes that IP laws comes to help the market and she didn’t want to give a monopoly!

קיבוע Characteristics

Minimal time: Peak v MAI –even a file that lasts for seconds on a computer is considered as קיבוע!

-Therefore, An unsaved doc. on the computer is considered as קיבוע even though its gone forever!

Types of Protected Expressions stat. 4 = open list

1)ספרותית:

1. הגדרה: לרבות...

Very Difficult to determine what is protected in a Literature:

-Characters:

• Real Life Characters = NO CR (דוד אחיטוב)
• Drawn: YES – פס"ד גבע נ' דיסני: Donald Duck has complete CR even when taken outside the contexts of its original work
• Movie Characters – מפעל הפייס v. Roy Exprots: Copied Charlie Chaplan. They weren’t found to have violated the CR because they changed and added but the rule was brought that a דמות קולנע has protection.
• Written Characters: Very difficult because each person who reads words creates a different character in their mind.
• It will also limit future writers to use Ideas!

US rule on Literary Characters: 1) Development of Characters 2) Centrality of Characters

Israel Rule on Literary Characters:

פס"ד מוסינזן נ' אפרתי

Q: Copied a Literary Character. Claim was – NO CR on Literary Characters!

A: When the Character is developed enough then there is! What is developed enough? When one can predict the actions of the character in his setting! In this case the character had the required development.

2)ספרות מסחרי – Things written on products/wrappers get CR if they are יצריתית ומקורית מינימאלית.

Hasbro v עולם הצעצוים

Q: Two “Baby Dring and PP” Dolls

A: Literature is even a few words and there is CR. So too, a Prospectus of a Company, User Manuals are considered worthy of CR.

3)הרצאות –

4)ספרי לימוד ושאלונים

1. ספרי לימוד: In Israel - YESהרשקו נ' אורבך. Parcho thinks this terrible.
2. ספרות משפטית: NO! פס"ד בן אוליאל נ' זר– Judge שטרנברג אליאז: Any ספרות משפטית is made up of laws, and known literature. It belongs to all!
3. Parcho: Likes!

מד"י נ' אחימן

Q: Achiman made special Charts to make it easy to fill out tax forms and the GOVT. distributed without his permission.

A: מחוזי – there was הפרה because these charts are מוגנות. עליון – these charts are indeed מוגנות but the charts that the GOVT. gave out were different!

5)תוכנות מחשב

פס"ד הרפז נ' אחיטוב

Q: A company used a program and promised not to allow anyone else use the program. The company designed a program with the exact same purpose.

A: What are the elements of a Computer Program?

1. שלב ההגדרות והדרישות: General Ouline of Ideas, goals, etc.
2. שלב עיצוב התוכנה
3. שלב התיכנות – the aesthetics

הש מלץ: The first two are the most important (ab. 60 % acc. to מלץ) but each has independent CR. It is necessary to guard so as to encourage creative development but every case must be determined by itself. מלץ wants to safeguard against “trempistim” who will copy the first two and just change the last stage which is the easiest but also the most recognizable.

-Criticism: Parcho – this is too much CR. The Courts act on an IMpluse of defending Kinyan but cause too much damage. It opens too many peple to law suites. מלץ didn’t foresse the bad consequences acc. to Parcho.

פס"ד לוטוס נ' בורלנד

Q: The Operating System of a program “Graphic User Interface” was copiedbut the function of the whole program was different. The Claim of the copiers – “people recognize the window and they need it to access the purpose of the program which is different (Opposite of הרפז נ' אחיטוב)

A: The method (windows interface) cannot have CR since it isn’t an expression but a process. The copiers were allowed to copy!

פס"ד אפל נ' מיקרוסופט

Q: Appel came out with the idea of using ICONS for programs and Microsoft copied the idea and the specific expression of the “Trash Can”

A: The idea of Icons cannot be copyrighted but the specific design of the Icon can.

-Microsoft changed their name from “Trash Can” to “Recycle Bin”

6)יצירת אומנות – Shamgar in Interlego: No need for any quality at all!

7)צילומים אומנותיים

1. Picture of a place – no CR
2. Picture of a scene at a geographical location = Yes CR. This is a very liberal protection because it blurs the distinction between רעיון וביטוי

8)יצירה מוסיקאלית

1. Israel: the words are NOT part of the יצירה מוסיקאלית rather get independent CR as יצירה ספרותית and the tune = יצירה מוסיקאלית

Who Owns the CR? – Stat. 33

-In general, the Creator/Artist and NOT the person who ordered the creation.

• Exception: an ordered portrait or video of a family function – belongs to the famiy.
• פס"ד נ' מעריב בעניין אסון אולם וורסאי– The pics from the event belong to the hosts of the event! The sick newspaper cant just use them!!! (Privacy Rights came up too)
• פס"ד רבינוביץ נ' מירלי –Q: ballet dancer didn’t want her pic shown on the tickets to the show! A: since she didn’t order the picture and its not a family function and she didn’t stipulate in any agreement she has no say in the Pic. The issue is one of Privacy Rights!חוק הגנת הפרטיות סע 2(6)

Functional Items

סע' 22 לחוק הישן: A design is not entitled to CR if it can get CR in Patent Design

סע' 7 לחוק החדש: A design may get CR unless it isn’t ייצור תעשייתי

פס"ד אינטרלגו
Q: Lego was Copied by Duplo. Lego didn’t have a Patent on the Lego because they assumed it would be protected through CR.

A: NO: עמדת רב במחוזי + עמדת דורנר בעליון: Lego got a Patent Design in the past but it ran out. This proves that the design may get a Patent and therefore may not get a CR

A: YES in theory but because of שיקולי מדיניות then NO: שמגר:

1)Theoretically one may get CR on Funciontal Designs

1. חשש–too much הגנה which will bring a monopoly – דוק' האיחוד
2. חשש – will limit future creativity.

1.PARCHO: שמגר is brining up the תיאוריית התמריץ הכלכלי: we want an open and competitive market

2)מבחן האומנותיות: Additional requirements for CR on Functional Designs (beyond the classic “Minimal Creativity/Originality” requirement - Original = מקוריות יצירתיות (השקעה) מינימאלית. NEW Functional Designs = מקוריות + יצירתיות +אומנותיות

1. How can we tell if its Artistic?שמגר offers:

1.מבחן הבחירה – what was the reason behind choosing this - objective

2.כוונת היוצר – “ לעייל” Subjective

3.קבלת הדבר בציבור: do they recognize it as “artistic”?

4.נכונות הציבור לשלם:

5.מבחן הרמה האסתטית המינימאלית

6.האומנות לשמה

שמגרProcess tests – BAD. End Result Tests = GOOD.

(says its best not to use the ones that deal with the process of the making because they are things in theheart of the Artist (he will always say he made it as art) Best to use the end results which are more objective)

3)מבחן הבחירה – thinks this is the best of the tests: “What were the dominant elements of the product? Functional or Artistic? If it is slightly artistic then it is ok. It does not need to be primarily artistic.

4)שיקולי מדיניות: Even if its ok based on מבחן האומנות based on the מבחן הבחירה, then the court needs to apply שיקולי מדיניות: Will it monopolize? פגעיה בתחרות!

5)אין לעקוף דרך "שרטוטים": Interlego tried to get CR based on the “design drawings” as יצירה אומנותית. שמגר said its not allowed because it ultimately leads to CR on the functional design.

1. PARCHO:GOOD END RESULT: his is exactly what דורנר said based upon סע' 7 – we check if there is a פגיעה בתחרות

- As lawyers: Tell companies who are designing Functional Designs and don’t want Patents Designs to create “protocols” and “meetings” relating to the Design of the Item to use in court to prove “Aetsthetics”!

- Parcho: שמגר did not create anything! He used מבחן הבחירה for the מבחן האומנות and that doesn’t really help: every item has an aesthetic element!

פס"ד נינה עיצוב בלבן נ' אלה זלובסקי – ייצור תעשייתית מול אופנה

Q: A woman creates wedding dresses which are in theory functional items. However she creates only 2 or 3 of each type so its NOT ייצור תעשייתי

A: Since only a few are made its not ייצור תעשייתי and does’t get Patent or Design but rather CR. Based on שמגר test in Interlego

פס"ד מיכל נגרין עיצובים נ' שארם תכשיטים ישרלאיים

Q: Hairpins were being sold which copied Michal Nagrin

A: ש' ארבל: There are enough elements so it gets הגנה

זכויות בזכויות יוצרים

הזכויות הניתנות להפרה ס' 11

1. זכות העקתה ושיעתוק– (Copy Right) main right!
2. העתקה זמנית: סע' 26 - SAFE HARBOR: Is allowed if
3. If it’s a integral part of transferring the info. through רשת תקשורת
4. ע"י גורם ביניים
5. שימוש אחר בין
6. ובלבלד אין השלכות כספיות משמעותיות

1. זכות העמדה לציבור– relevant on unpublished work (פס"ד קמרון)
2. ס' 1: a minimal amount of העמדה is ok. In קימרון the fact that the author sent out his work to some academics didn’t meant hat when it was copied and published it had already been מפורסם

1. זכות הביצוע הפומבי –13

-Not on אומנות. Only relevant for: ספרות, יצירה דרמטית, מוסיקלית, ותקליט

1. ביצוע ישיר:
2. ביצוע מכני: In old law there was no זכות שידור so ביצוע פומבי was the main סעד!
3. TELEEVENT – ש' מצאwasn’t considered ביצוע פומבי because it was for מסחר???

פס"ד אקו"ם נ' חברת מלון דבורה: a TV in a lobby for people to see IS הפרת זכות הביצוע הפומבי

פס"ד אקו"ם נ' קרן: Music in Haircutting salon = הפרת זכ' ביצוע פומבי

Test forמכאני ביצוע פומבי in US Law:

1. Beyond Familial Groups or שידור

In Israel:

1. אופי הקהל
2. האם הביצוע = מטרות רווח
3. אופי המקום של הביצוע
4. זכות השידור: סע' 11(4) points to סע' 14 = all types of יצירות

פס"ד TELEEVENT – ש' מצא says שידור = צרכי מסחר

פס"ד Premier League – Streaming is NOT considered שידור bec. there is a הסדר שלילי!

1. זכות יצירות נגזרות (אומנות, ספרות, דרמטית, מוסיקלית)
2. זכות העמדה לציבור (סע' 15) – this is the 1st sale
3. FIRST SALE DOCTRINE in US
4. Israel: סע' 48 allows someone to deal w/CR on שוק משני
5. NOT השכרה acc. to סע' 17
6. זכות העיבוד – part of עשיית יצירה נגזרתסע' 16
7. זכות ההשכרה17
8. Exception to 1st sale doctrine

השאלה:

Initially: פס"ד ספריית חולון: they gave out disks and were sued by disk company

A: מחוזי – was הפרה because it is לצורך מסחרי and considered “lending” like “renting” bec. people pay money for מנוי at Library! עליון: פרשנות מצומצמת של "לצרכי מסחר" like it says in סע' 17. This was שיקולי מדיניות – CR comes to enrich the world!

-BEC. of פס"ד the NEW law corrected it in:סע' 17(ב)

זכויות מוסריות

-ס' 45 + 46

1. יצירה אומנותית
2. דרמאטית
3. מוסיקאלית
4. ספרותית (למעט תוכנות מחשב)

Attributes:

1. Always belong to the proper creator (even when the זכויות belong to another – יחסי עובד מעביד
2. Will stay with him always – even if he passes the כלכליות to another
3. Can’t be העברה
4. Old Law this didn’t exist
5. פס"ד עטייה נ' עיריית ת"א: וויתור – the architect of עזריאלי sued TA bec. they wanted to change his creation. A: He made a וויתור מכללא when he decided to be in בוררות.
6. NEW LAW: Unclear how they’d relate to זכות וויתור: Can someone מוותר on their right or maybe only on their right to sue…

Types of זכויות מוסריות

1. 46(2) זכות ההורות והייחוס – In קמרון Judge טירקל said: "אדם זכאי ששמו יקרא על ילדי רוחו. זיקתו הרוחנית לאל כמוה כזיקתו ליוצא חלציו"
2. זכות לשלמות46(2)
3. טאו נ' הטכניון: addition to the חקלאות building hurt his זכות מוסרית and he gets פיצוי
4. פאר הקודש נ' גליגי: A bad printing of a collectors הגדה של פסח is פגיע
5. פס"ד פביאן נ' רמת גן: The artist put a statute in town and the town removed it and were responsible for הפרת זכות השלמות
6. מלוסי נ' יוסף – someones’ article "מתחת לקו העוני" was published in a paper that the author was ideologically opposed to despite mentioning his name (אין פגיעה בזכות הייחוס) – It IS הפרה.
7. פס"ד גודוביץ – taking art and using it for public out of context is = הפרה
8. Parcho: Alwoays ask for וויתור על זכות לשלמות even if the court won’t definti. Allow it it is likely as opposed to זכות הייחוס is unlikely

סע' 56א – allows court to give פיצויי even w/o proof of damage!