 |
Computer Crime and
|
|
Computer Crime and
|
The Department of Justice continually provides informal guidance to prosecutors and investigators as they work through complex substantive, procedural and practical elements of intellectual property crime cases. While this guidance does not provide any legal rights or obligations, it is helpful to law enforcement as they address challenging questions of law, policy or practice. For example, the manual, Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes, written by the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, provides guidance to law enforcement on the investigation and prosecution of violations of federal intellectual property laws. You may access these documents via the links below.
A. Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes Manual
This manual, written by the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, provides
guidance to law enforcement on the investigation and prosecution of violationsof federal
intellectual property laws.
Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes ManualB. Novel Criminal Copyright Infringement Issues Related to the Internet, David Goldstone and Michael O’Leary, USA Bulletin (May 2001)
Copyright law is based on a simple premise enshrined in Anglo-American legal tradition: For a limited time, an original work in fixed form may not be copied (or otherwise infringed) without the permission of the copyrightholder. The basis of copyright in federal law is as old as the Constitution,U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8; infringement of a copyright has been a federal crime since 1909. See Act of March 4, 1909, ch. 28, 35 Stat.1082. The legal right of control over a creative work has long been recognizedas an essential incentive for authors to create such works.
Additional information on this subject is available via the link below.
C. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996: An Overview, George "Toby" Dilworth, USA Bulletin (May 2001)In January 1998, Caryn Camp was unhappy with her job at IDEXX Laboratories, a world-leading manufacturer of veterinary diagnostics products based in Maine. She started searching the internet for another job, and sent an email with her resume to a company called Wyoming DNAVaccine ("WDV"). Steven Martin, WDV's chief scientific officer, responded enthusiastically. Martin and Camp began corresponding regularly by email. Much of the early correspondence related to mundane topics about their lives in Maine and the west coast. However, as the correspondence progressed, Martin began emailing questions about IDEXX's manufacturing methods, customer base, and pricing schedule. Camp emailed her answers back to Martin. After Camp expressed reservations about sending information to Martin and WDV, a potential competitor to IDEXX, Martin emailed her claiming that he did "not want to know anything confidential about IDEXX." He said he only wanted public information.
Additional information on this subject is available via the link below.
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996: An Overview, George "Toby" Dilworth, USA Bulletin (May 2001)
D. Deciding Whether to Prosecute an Intellectual Property Case, David Goldstone,
USA Bulletin (March 2001)
Federal prosecutors know that deciding whether to prosecute a particular case requires the
exercise of judgment and discretion, which can take years of experience to develop. But what
if you are presented with an intellectual property ("IP") case and you have not done many of
them before, if any? How should you decide whether a particular case of counterfeit computer
chips, pirated music or software sold (or given away for free) over the Internet, or stolen satellite
signals should be charged, even if an investigator provides evidence to prove all the elements?
What special considerations, if any, come into play?
Deciding Whether to Prosecute an Intellectual Property Case, David Goldstone,
USA Bulletin (March 2001)
There is no "per se" rule that government reproduction of copyrighted material -- including, in particular, government photocopying of copyrighted materials for internal government use -- automatically qualifies as a fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. However, government photocopying would in many contexts be noninfringing because it would be a "fair use"; and there are good reasons that, if an agency decides to negotiate photocopying licensing agreements, it should seek to limit the scope of any such arrangement to cover only those government photocopying practices that otherwise would, in fact, be infringing. Analysis of these issues is provided via the link below:
Go to . . . CCIPS Home Page || Justice
Department Home Page
