Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Google and Twitter s Amicus Brief

Google and Twitter s Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 150 |Likes:
Published by David Green

More info:

Published by: David Green on Jun 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/29/2010

pdf

text

original

 
No
. 10-1372
In TheFor The Second CircuitBarclays Capital Inc.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.,
 Defendant-Appellant.On Appeal From The United States District Court  For TheSouthern District of New York 
BRIEF OF
AMICI CURIAE 
GOOGLE INC. AND TWITTER, INC. IN SUPPORT OFREVERSAL
June 21, 2010 Kathleen M. Sullivan (
counsel of record 
)Marc L. GreenwaldJonathan B. Oblak Todd AntenQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor  New York, NY 10010(212) 849-7000
Counsel foramici curiae
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and 29(c),
amici
make the following disclosures:Google Inc. (“Google”) has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporationowns 10% or more of Google’s stock.
 
Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) has no parent corporation, and no publicly heldcorporation owns 10% or more of Twitter’s stock.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ivSTATEMENT OF CONSENT TO FILING viiSTATEMENT OF INTEREST 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2ARGUMENT 6I. “HOT NEWSMISAPPROPRIATION RUNS AFOUL OF THECOPYRIGHT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THECOPYRIGHT ACT 6A. Unde
 Feist 
, Facts Are In The Public Domain 6B. “Hot NewsMisappropriation Violates
 Feist 
81. The Copyright Clause prohibits the removal of factual information from the public domain 92. “Sweat of the browcannot justify protectingownership in facts 103. The “extra elementsthat purport to preclude preemption are the same elements rejected in
 Feist 
10C. Important Practical and Public Policy Concerns Justify ThisCourt’s Rejection of “Hot NewsMisappropriation 12II. ANY “Hot NewsMisappropriation Should Be EXTREMELYLIMITED, Mirroring THE FACTS of 
 INS 
14A. The Court Should Limit “Hot NewsMisappropriationClaims To a Narrow Set of Commercial Competitors 14B. The District Court Improperly Expanded The “DirectCompetition” Element Of 
Motorola
17III. The Scope of the District court’s Injunction Violates the FirstAmendment 19A. The Reporting Of Facts Cannot Be Enjoined AbsentExtraordinary Circumstances” 20
 
B. “Extraordinary CircumstancesCannot Be Present WhenThe Factual Information Is Already In The Public Domain 23C. Less Intrusive Measures Are Available ToAppellees 24D. The District Court Undervalued First AmendmentConstraints On Intellectual Property Law 26CONCLUSION 28CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) 29CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 30
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)Cases
 Attia v. Soc’y of N.Y. Hosp.
,201 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1999) 8
 Bartnicki v. Vopper 
,532 U.S. 514 (2001) 6, 14, 23, 24
 Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Technicare Corp.
,710 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1983) 27
CBS Inc. v. Davis
,510 U.S. 1315 (1994) 5, 23, 26, 28
Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn
,420 U.S. 469 (1975) 21
 Eldred v. Ashcroft 
,537 U.S. 186 (2003) 8
 Erie R.R. v. Tompkins
,304 U.S. 64 (1938) 9
 Feist Publ's, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
,499 U.S. 340 (1991) passim
 Florida Star v. B.J.F.
,491 U.S. 524 (1989) 22, 23

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
pbfriedman liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->