Reverse Engineering IP

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 1 Reverse Engineering IP Tonya M. Evans Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Tonya M. Evans, Reverse Engineering IP, 17 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 61 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol17/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact .    REVERSE  ENGINEERING  IP   TONYA  M.  EVANS*       INTRODUCTION  .......................................................................................................................  62   PART  I:    SAMPLING  PATENT  TO  REMIX  COPYRIGHT:  THEORY  IN  PRACTICE  ...............  66   PART  II:    THE  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  MONOPOLIES  ................................................  71   A.    Tale  of  Two  Regimes  .....................................................................................  72   B.    Patent  ..................................................................................................................  75   1.    Policy  Considerations  and  the  Law  ................................................  75   C.    Copyright  ............................................................................................................  76   1.    Policy  Considerations  and  the  Law  ................................................  76   2.    The  Copyright  Act  ..................................................................................  78   3.    Fair  Use  ......................................................................................................  78   4.    A  Closer  Look  at  Originality  ..............................................................  81   5.    Overprotection  and  Misuse  ...............................................................  83   a.    Overprotection  .................................................................................  84   b.    Misuse  ..................................................................................................  87   PART  III:    REVERSE-‐ENGINEERING  .....................................................................................  88   A.    Reverse  Engineering  in  the  Traditional  Manufacturing   Context  .............................................................................................................  90   B.    Reverse  Engineering  in  the  Digital  Context  ........................................  91   C.    Reverse  Engineering  &  Copyright  ...........................................................  94   1.    Fair  Use  ......................................................................................................  94   2.    The  Digital  Millennium  Copyright  Act  ..........................................  95   D.    The  Chip  Act  .....................................................................................................  96   PART  IV:    THE  IP  AXIS:  WHERE  DISTINCT  REGIMES  CONVERGE  .................................  97   CONCLUSION  ..........................................................................................................................  100   *      Associate   Professor   of   Law,   Widener   University   School   of   Law.   B.S.   Communication   Studies,   Northwestern   University.   J.D.,   Howard   University   School   of   law.   The   research   and   writing   assistance   of   Vanessa   Mendelewski,   Arrielle   Millstein   and   Rebekka   Vallandingham   proved   invaluable   and   is   greatly   appreciated.   Special   thanks   to   colleagues   who   provided   the   insightful   commentary   at   the   2011   Intellectual   Property   Scholars   Conference   at   DePaul   University   Law   School,   especially   the   guidance   received   from   Margo   A.   Bagley,   Professor   of   Law   at   University   of   Virginia   School   of   Law.   Additionally,   many   thanks   to   Rebecca   Tushnet,   Professor  of  Law  at  Georgetown  University  Law  Center  for  her  comments  and  those  received   from   the   other   attendees   at   the   Third   Annual   Intellectual   Property   Roundtable   at   The   Columbus   School  of  Law  including  Beth  Winston.       62   MARQ.  INTELL.  PROP.  L.  REV.   [Vol.  17:1    INTRODUCTION   “Plagiarism  is  necessary,  progress  implies  it.”1   Michalis  Pichler     With   the   advent   of   the   Internet   and   digital   technology,   the   twenty-‐ first   century   has   ushered   in   a   quantum   increase   in   the   ways   to   create,   disseminate,   and   commercially   exploit   creativity.     Digital   technology   allows   anyone   to   create   perfect   digital   copies   of   protected   works   in   the   comfort   of   their   homes   and   to   distribute   them   to   tens,   hundreds,   thousands,  and  even  millions  of  people  with  the  click  of  a  hyperlink  via  a   handheld   device.     Indeed,   copyright   touches   more   ordinary   people   in   substantial   ways   in   this   age   of   information   than   at   any   other   time   in   American  copyright  history.2   The   copy-‐and-‐paste   reality   and   firmly   entrenched   user   expectations   to   access,   reuse,   remix,   and   share   creative   output   instantly   via   e-‐mail,   blogs,   and   social   networks   are   far   afield   from   what   Congress   originally   contemplated  when  it  responded  to  its  constitutional  call  and  enacted  the   first   version   of   the   Copyright   Act   to   solve   the   public   goods   problem   inherent  in  inexhaustible  goods  like  intellectual  property.3   Art  forms  that (...truncated)