>>Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1991 decision Feist v. Rural Telephone, had declared that facts are not copyrightable. This new legislation is an attempt to overturn the Feist decision.

     Is this written in such a way that it could legally limit the USSC's ability to rule on this issue, or is it written in a way that would render the new legislation vulnerable to another negative ruling?

Ooooo. I was in a Who's Who book once. If facts can be owned, then who would own the facts they published? Them or me? Sheesh.

I dont really see how this could be in any way practical. Facts can be learned from multiple sources. If a person gets a name and address from a phone directory and also from public records, how can the owner of the phone directory make any claim to own the facts?

Let's say that, after ownership of facts is established, a database company thinks you are using some of its content. They file a lawsuit, noting that a lot of the information in your database mirrors theirs. They do have the burden of proof, but during pretrial discovery they're going to ask you where you obtained that factual information. If you can't explain how you got it, save for from their content, you will be in trouble.

Let's say that it is The Political Graveyard versus EvilDataCorp, a multi-billion dollar publishing house. Let's say that The Political Graveyard is sued, defends, establishes that it obtained the data from legitimate sources, and the suit is dismissed. How much do you suppose that small, educational, public-interest project would have paid in legal fees and costs by the time of the dismissal? Somewhere in the five figures - maybe more? (As a lawyer, Larry might be able to do it for less, but you get the point.)

Now let's assume that EvilDataCorp, the multi-billion dollar publishing house, develops a database of information that is, at the time of its inception, unique. Rather than allowing competitors to emerge, EvilDataCorp sues any company which creates a competing product claiming copyright infringement. Assuming it can successfully tie up its legitimate competitors through the litigation process, it will achieve two ends: First, it will remain the sole source of information; Second, it will deter competitors from trying to enter the field as they know they will be sued. If it is sufficiently aggressive, competitors will assume that it will follow the same model with its future products, and again competition will be deterred.

Edited by author 02-03-2004 10:24 AM
On a slight tangent, speaking of EvilDataCorp and its defense of its "intellectual property".... (Link courtesy of mythago.)

It's not too late to BE EvilDataCorp...at least its domain name is available. ;)