Copyright Protection of Scientific Research Data

  • Deborah W. Denno

Abstract

Scientific research in the United States has grown substantially in recent years (Andrews, 1989; Brooks, 1988; Cooper, 1980; Dukarich, 1989; Eisenberg, 1987; Korn, 1987; Reichman, 1989). Much commentary has addressed the ownership and control of such research as intellectual property under the patent laws (Burk, 1989; Eisenberg, 1987; Korn, 1987; Rosenfeld, 1988) or as agency records (Walterscheid, 1989) and trade secrets (Nelkin, 1984) under the Freedom of Information Act (1988). A parallel but scarcely examined issue, however, concerns those proprietary rights that exist under copyright (Bovard, 1954; Burk, 1989; Cecil & Griffin, 1985; R. Jones, 1987), that area of intellectual property law that regulates the use and flow of information and its by-products (Office of Technology Assessment, 1986).

Keywords

Intellectual Property Acquire Immune Deficiency Syndrome Copyright Protection Copyright Infringement Computer Data Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, I. (1989). Statutory protection of the algorithm in a computer program: A comparison of the copyright and patent laws. Computer/Law Journal, 9, 125–144.Google Scholar
  2. Adventures in Good Eating, Inc. v. Best Places to Eat, Inc., 131 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1942).Google Scholar
  3. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, E. (1989, February 15). Equations patented: Some see a danger. New York Times, pp. Dl, D6.Google Scholar
  5. Angier, N. (1990a, August 7). AIDS research chief awaits key report on propriety questions. New York Times, p. C3.Google Scholar
  6. Angier, N. (1990b, June 5). Great 15-year project to decipher genes stirs opposition. New York Times, pp. Cl, C12.Google Scholar
  7. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  8. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corporation, 714 F.2d 1240 (3rd Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  9. Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946). Baker v. Sciden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).Google Scholar
  10. Barnes, D. (1987). Meeting on AIDS drugs turns into open forum. Science, 237, 1287–1288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birch, S. (1989, January 23). Protecting the economic value of a law firm’s work product. National Law Journal, 11, 16–19.Google Scholar
  12. Black’s Law Dictionary. (1983). St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographic Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).Google Scholar
  14. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K., & Wise, D. (1986). Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 231, 242–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Booth, W. (1989). AIDS researchers upset by refusal to share probes on mysterious microbe. Science, 244, 416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bovard, G. (1954). Copyright protection in the area of scientific and technical works. Copyright Law Symposium, 5, 68–106.Google Scholar
  17. Broad, W. (1990a, June 10). How the $8 billion space station became a $120 billion showpiece. New York Times, pp. Al, A30.Google Scholar
  18. Broad, W. (1990b, September 4). Small-scale science feels the pinch from big projects. New York Times, pp. Cl, C6.Google Scholar
  19. Broad, W. (1990c, May 27). Vast sums for new discoveries pose a threat to basic science. New York Times, pp. Al, A20.Google Scholar
  20. Brodbeck, M. (1968). Models, meaning, and theories. In M. Brodbeck (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 579–600). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Brooks, H. (1988). The research university: Doing good, and doing it better. Issues in Science and Technology, 4, 49–55.Google Scholar
  22. Brown, R. (1985). Copyright and computer databases: The case of the bibliographic utility. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 11, 17–49.Google Scholar
  23. Brown, V. (1988). The incompatibility of copyright and computer software: An economic evaluation and a proposal for a marketplace solution. North Carolina Law Review, 66, 977–1019.Google Scholar
  24. Burk, D. (1989). Copyrightability of recombinant DNA sequences. Jurimetrics Journal, 29, 469–532.Google Scholar
  25. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).Google Scholar
  26. Ceci, S. (1988). Scientists’ attitudes towards data sharing. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 13, 45–52.Google Scholar
  27. Ceci, S., & Walker, E. (1983). Private archives and public needs. American Psychologist, 38, 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cecil, J., & Griffin, E. (1985). The role of legal policies in data sharing. In S. Fienberg, M. Martin, & M. Straf (Eds.), Sharing research data (pp. 148–198). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Chalk, R. (1985). Overview: AAAS project on secrecy and openness in science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chavis, D., Stucky, P., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research to the community: A relationship between scientist and citizen. American Psychologist, 38, 424–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chubin, D. (1988). Allocating credit and blame in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 13, 53–63.Google Scholar
  32. Committee on National Statistics. (1985). Report of the Committee on National Statistics. In S. Fienberg, M. Martin, & M. Straf (Eds.), Sharing research data (pp. 3–24). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Conley, J., & Bryan, R. (1985). A unifying theory for the litigation of computer software of copyright cases. North Carolina Law Review, 63, 563–616.Google Scholar
  34. Cooling Systems & Flexibles Inc. v. Stuart Radiator Inc., 777 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  35. Cooper, I. (1980). The patent system and the “new biology.” Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 8, 1–46.Google Scholar
  36. Copyright Act of 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124.Google Scholar
  37. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1962).Google Scholar
  39. Davenport, C. (1979). Judicial creation of the prima facie tort of plagiarism in furtherance of American protection of moral rights. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 29, 735–767.Google Scholar
  40. Denicola, R. (1981). Copyright in collections of facts: A theory for the protection of works. Columbia Law Review, 81, 516–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. DiBenedetto, J. (1984). An outline for arbitration under the civil practice law and rules. Albany Law Review, 48, 763–796.Google Scholar
  42. Dickson, D. (1984). The new politics of science. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  43. Dow Jones & Co. v. Board of Trade, 546 F. Supp. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).Google Scholar
  44. Dreisbach, G. (1984). The courts establish the rules for videogames under the Copyright Act of 1976: Is it too hard to play? Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 10, 127–148.Google Scholar
  45. DuBoff, L. (1984). An academic’s copyright: Publish or perish. Journal of the Copyright Society, 31, 17–37.Google Scholar
  46. Durham Industries v. Tomy Corporation, 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  47. Dukarich, G. (1989). Patentability of dedicated information processors and infringement protection of inventions that use them. Jurimetrics, 29, 135–220.Google Scholar
  48. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, 736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  49. Educational Testing Service v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
  50. Einhorn, D. (1988). The scope of computer software copyrights. Copyright Law Symposium, 35, 113–143.Google Scholar
  51. Eisenberg, R. (1987). Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law Journal, 97, 177–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Farr, E. (1989). Copyrightability of computer-created works. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 15, 63–80.Google Scholar
  53. Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody’s Investors Service, 808 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 108 S.Ct. 79 (1987).Google Scholar
  54. Fisher, W. (1988). Reconstructing the fair use doctrine. Harvard Law Review, 101, 1659–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Flewellen, L. (1981). An anomaly in the patent system: The uncertain status of computer software. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 8, 273–303.Google Scholar
  56. Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980).Google Scholar
  57. Freedman, M. (1986). The professional responsibility of the law professor: Three neglected questions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 39, 275–286.Google Scholar
  58. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552 (1988).Google Scholar
  59. Gabig, J. (1986). Federal research grants: Who owns the intellectual property? Public Contract Law Journal, 16, 187–212.Google Scholar
  60. Gage, T. (1987). Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratories: Copyright protection for computer software structure—what’s the purpose? Wisconsin Law Review, 1987, 859–894.Google Scholar
  61. Gambrell, J. (1980). Overview of ownership conflicts that arise with respect to intellectual property. In American Bar Association (Ed.), Sorting out the ownership rights in intellectual property (pp. 9–16). New York: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  62. Ginsburg, J. (1982). Sabotaging and reconstructing history: A comment on the scope of copyright protection in works of history after Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Journal of the Copyright Society, 29, 647–673.Google Scholar
  63. Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).Google Scholar
  64. Gorman, R. (1963). Copyright protection for the collection and representation of facts. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1569–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gorman, R. (1982). Fact or fancy: The implications for copyright. Journal of the Copyright Society, 29, 560–610.Google Scholar
  66. Greenberger, I., & Kane, M. (1989). Rights-in-data policies affecting department of defense acquisition of computer software and related products. Computer/Law Journal, 9, 447–463.Google Scholar
  67. Griffith, B., & Mullins, N. (1972). Coherent social groups in scientific change. Science, 177, 959–964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Gupta, R. (1988). Koontz v. Jaffarian: The unit publication doctrine. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 14, 261–283.Google Scholar
  69. Hagstrom, W. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Halvey, J. (1988). A rose by any other name: Computer programs and the idea-expression distinction. Copyright Law Symposium, 35, 1–40.Google Scholar
  71. Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).Google Scholar
  72. Hartnett, D. (1989). A new era for copyright law: Reconstituting the fair use doctrine. New York Law School Review, 34, 267–302.Google Scholar
  73. Hedrick, T. (1985). Justifications for and obstacles to data sharing. In S. Fienberg, M. Martin, & M. Straf (Eds.), Sharing research data (pp. 123–147). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  74. Heffner, A. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hicks, J. (1987). Copyright and computer data bases: Is traditional compilation law adequate? Texas Law Review, 5, 993–1028.Google Scholar
  76. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 841 (1980).Google Scholar
  77. Hogan, J., & Schwartz, M. (1982). The false air of scholarship. Whittier Law Review, 4, 192–215.Google Scholar
  78. Holtzman, E. (1985). Commentary: Biology faces life—pressures on communications and careers. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. House of Representatives, Report No. 1476, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 47 (1976), reprinted in, 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 5659–5823.Google Scholar
  80. Hutchinson Telephone Co. v. Fronteer Directory Co. of Minnesota, 770 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  81. Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366.Google Scholar
  82. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).Google Scholar
  83. Jones, R. (1987). Is there property interest in scientific research data? High Technology Law Journal, 7, 447–482.Google Scholar
  84. Jones, S. (1987). Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory: Copyright protection for the structure and sequence of computer programs. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 21, 225–303.Google Scholar
  85. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New York: Thomas Crowell.Google Scholar
  86. Kaplan, L. (1984). Arbitration and intellectual property: A survey of arbitration in patent, trademark and copyright cases. Albany Law Review, 48, 797–820.Google Scholar
  87. Kauffman, S. (1987). Electronic databases in legal research: Beyond lexis and Westiaw. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 13, 73–103.Google Scholar
  88. Kernochan, J. (1987). Some observations on the protection of semiconductor chip design. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 13, 287–295.Google Scholar
  89. Kinter, E., & Lahr, J. (1982). An intellectual property law primer. New York: Clark Boardman.Google Scholar
  90. Kolata, G. (1990a, June 5). Beginning scientists face a research fund drought. New York Times, pp. Cl, C12.Google Scholar
  91. Kolata, G. (1990b, May 22). Medical data: Who should hear it first? New York Times, pp. Cl, C6.Google Scholar
  92. Koontz v. Jaffarian, 787 F.2d 906 (4th Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
  93. Korn, D. (1987). Patent and trade secret protection in university-industry research relationships in biotechnology. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 24, 191–238.Google Scholar
  94. Kuhn, T. (1970a). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–23). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Kuhn, T. (1970b). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  96. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific f acts. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  98. Leon v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 91 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1937).Google Scholar
  99. Levai, P. (1990). Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review, 103, 1105–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Lewis, D. (1987). Copyright aspects of databases. Computer Law & Practice, 3, 2–8.Google Scholar
  101. Lums, S. (1988). Copyright protection for factual compilations—Reviving the misappropriation doctrine. Fordham Law Review, 56, 933–953.Google Scholar
  102. MacKay, S. (1987). Broderbund Software, Inc. v. Unison World, Inc.: “Look and feel” copyright protection for the display screens of an application microcomputer program. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 13, 105–136.Google Scholar
  103. Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–89). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).Google Scholar
  105. McCain, K. (June 24, 1989). The production and exchange of research-related information in genetics. Paper presented at the 1989 meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  106. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. (1984). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  107. Merton, R. (1968). The Mathew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Merton, R. (1973a). The normative structure of science. In R. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 261–215). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  109. Merton, R. (1973b). Priorities in scientific discovery. In R. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 286–324). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  110. Miller v. Universal City Studios, 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  111. Mills, M. (1989). New technology and the limitations of copyright law: An argument for finding alternatives to copyright legislation in an era of rapid technological change. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 65, 307–339.Google Scholar
  112. Monahan, J., & Walker, I. (1990). Social science in law: Cases and materials. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  113. Morrisey v. Proctor Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).Google Scholar
  114. Mousalam, F. (1985). Protecting technical data and computer software rights in government contracts. Santa Clara Computer & High-Technology Law Journal, 1, 181–191.Google Scholar
  115. Mulkay, M. (1969). Some aspects or cultural growth in the natural sciences. Social Research, 36, 22–52.Google Scholar
  116. National Business Lists v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 552 F. Supp. 89 (N.D. 111. 1982).Google Scholar
  117. Nelkin, D. (1982). Intellectual property: The control of scientific information. Science, 216, 704–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Nelkin, D. (1984). Science as intellectual property: Who controls research? New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  119. New York Times Co. v. Roxbury Data Interface, 434 F. Supp. 217 (D.N.J. 1977).Google Scholar
  120. Nimmer, M. (1989). The law of copyright. New York: Mathew Bender.Google Scholar
  121. Nodiff, M. (1984). Copyrightability of works of the federal and state governments under the 1976 Act. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 29, 91–114.Google Scholar
  122. Notes. (1990). Computer intellectual property and conceptual severance. Harvard Law Review, 103, 1046–1063.Google Scholar
  123. Nusbaum, N. (1989). Cooperation, not compulsion, in distribution of research materials. Cell, 56, 729–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Odom, L. (1987). Fact v. fiction: A survey of the distinction’s impact on copyright infringement claims. Memphis State University Law Review, 18, 99–123.Google Scholar
  125. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (1986). Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  126. Papay-Carder, D. (1983). Plagiarism in legal scholarship. Toledo Law Review, 15, 233–271.Google Scholar
  127. Patterson, L. (1987). Free speech, copyright, and fair use. Vanderbuilt Law Review, 40, 1–66.Google Scholar
  128. Patterson, L., & Joyce, C. (1989). Monopolizing the law: The scope of copyright protection for law reports and statutory compilations. UCLA Law Review, 36, 719–814.Google Scholar
  129. Pedersen, R. (1988). West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc. (Lexis). Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 14, 359–389.Google Scholar
  130. Rand McNally & Co. v. Fleet Management Systems, 591 F. Supp. 726 (N.D. 111. 1986).Google Scholar
  131. Raskind, L. (1986). The uncertain case for special legislation protecting computer software. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47, 1131–1184.Google Scholar
  132. Reams, B. (1986). University-industry research partnerships: The major legal issues in research and development agreements. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  133. Reich, C. (1990). The new property after 25 years. University of San Francisco Law Review, 24, 223–241.Google Scholar
  134. Reichman, J. (1989). Computer programs as applied scientific know-how: Implications of copyright protection for commercialized university research. Vanderbuilt Law Review, 42, 639–723.Google Scholar
  135. Reznick, A. (1980). Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co.: Copyright protection for computer formats and the idea/expression dichotomy. Journal of Computers, Technology and Law, 8, 65–84.Google Scholar
  136. Rome, W. (1988). Scholarly writings in the university setting: Changes in the works and on the books. Copyright law Symposium, 35, 41–68.Google Scholar
  137. Rosenfeld, S. (1988). Sharing of research results in a federally sponsored gene mapping project. Rutgers Compter & Technology Law Journal, 14, 311–358.Google Scholar
  138. Roth Greeting Cards, v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).Google Scholar
  139. Rubin v. Boston Magazine Co., 645 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  140. Sampson & Murdock Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co., 140 Fed. 539 (1st 1905).Google Scholar
  141. Sato, E. (1983). Copyright law and factual works— Is research protected?—Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Washington Law Review, 58, 619–631.Google Scholar
  142. Saunders, E. (1987). Copyright protection for compilations of fact: Does the originality standard allow protection on the basis of industrious collection? Notre Dame law Review, 62, 763–778.Google Scholar
  143. Schimke, R. (1988). Rapid distribution of research materials: Whose responsibility is it? Cell, 55, 391–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  145. Schwartz, M., & Hogan, J. (1984). Copyright law and the academic community: Issues affecting teachers, researchers, students, and libraries. University of California, Davis Law Review, 17, 147–1178.Google Scholar
  146. Senate Report No. 473, 94th Congress, 1st Session (1975), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, pp. 5659–5823. 17 U.S.C. sec. 101–103, 105–108, 113–118, 201, 202, 301, 302(a), 501 (1988).Google Scholar
  147. Shipley, D., & Hay, J. (1984). Protecting research: Copyright, common-law alternatives, and federal preemption. North Carolina Law Review, 62, 125–181.Google Scholar
  148. Sid & Marty Kroff Television Products, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corporation, 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  149. Simon, A. (1984). A constitutional analysis of copyrighting government-commissioned work. Columbia Law Review, 84, 425–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Smith, G., & Parr, R. (1989). Valuation of intellectual property and intangible assets. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  151. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Associated Telephone Directory Publishers, 756 F.2d 801 (11th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  152. Stimson, D. (1985). Note: Factual compilations— copyright protection for compilation depends on degree of originality involved in assembing facts. Journal of the Copyright Society, 33, 1–17.Google Scholar
  153. Strum, S. & Latour, B. (1987). Redefining the social link: From baboons to humans. Social Science Information, 26, 783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Suich, T. (1982). Copyright law—Will the denial of copyright to an author’s research impede scholarship? Miller v. Universal Studios, Inc. Western New England Law Review, 5, 103–124.Google Scholar
  155. Tapper, C. (1987). An aspect of copyright in data bases. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 67, 169–210.Google Scholar
  156. Telerate Systems, Inc. v. Caro, 689 F. Supp. 221 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).Google Scholar
  157. Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Sports Eye, Inc., 415Google Scholar
  158. F. Supp. 682 (E.D. Pa. 1976). United Telephone Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., 855 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988). U.S. constitution, article 1, sec. 8, cl. 8.Google Scholar
  159. Walter, C. (1988). Defining the scope of software copyright protection for maximum public benefit. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 14, 1–158.Google Scholar
  160. Walterscheid, E. (1989). Access to federally funded research data under the Freedom of Information Act. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 15, 1–61.Google Scholar
  161. Weil, V. (1988). Policy incentives and contraints on scientific and technical information. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 13, 17–26.Google Scholar
  162. Weinreb, L. (1990). Fair’s fair: A comment on the fair use doctrine. Harvard Law Review, 103, 1137–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Werlin v. Reader’s Digest Association, 528 F. Supp. 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).Google Scholar
  164. West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central Inc., 615 F. Supp. 1571 (D. Minn. 1985), affd, 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 107 S.Ct. 962 (1987).Google Scholar
  165. Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 1031 (1987).Google Scholar
  166. Wilford, J. (May 22, 1990). Ex-Colleagues turn combatants. New York Times, p. C7.Google Scholar
  167. Wilson, J. (1959). The scholar and the copyright law. Copyright Law Symposium, 10, 104–130.Google Scholar
  168. Wollgar, S. (1978). The emergence and growth of research areas in science with special reference to research on pulsars. Doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  169. World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1981 (1980).Google Scholar
  170. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
  171. Zuckerman, H. (1988). Introduction: Intellectual property and diverse rights of ownership in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 13, 7–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah W. Denno

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations