SCHEIN, DBA HENRY SCHEIN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (51 total)

• Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1985)
  …ent the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 234 (1918). Accord, Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F. 2d 303, 309 (CA2 1966), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 1009 (1967). See 1 Nimmer §2.11[A], at 2-158.3 [*582] The “promotion of science and the useful arts” requires this limit on the scope of an author’s control. Were an author able to prevent subsequent authors from using concepts, ideas, or facts contained…
• Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991)
  …in prior works. In truth, “[i]t is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts . . . [is] designed to prevent.” Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F. 2d 303, 310 (CA2 1966), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 1009 (1967). “Protection for the fruits of such research . . . may in certain circumstances be available under a theory of unfair competition. But to accord copyright protection on this basis alone distorts basic copyright principles in that it creates a…
• Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …derlined). It is well settled that copyright protection extends only to an author’s expression of facts and not to the facts themselves.1 See, e. g., Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F. 2d 303, 309 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1009, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967); Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Association, 275 F. 797, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1921); Alexander v. Haley, 460 F.Supp. 40, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1978); Lake v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 140 F.Supp. 707, 708-09 (S.D.Cal…

  ← 1 / 3 →