SAD Scheme Plaintiff Must Pay $40k to Defendant–Guangzhou Tinpod v. Schedule A Defendants
The plaintiff is Guangzhou Tinpod Electronic Technology Co. The plaintiff initially sued under the XYZ pseudonym and hasn’t updated the case caption, even though its identity is no longer sealed. I presume the plaintiff and many of the 44 defendants…
Courts Still Can’t Let Go of the Possibility that Individual Prices are Copyrightable–Rapaport v. Nivoda
In my previous blog post on this case, I wrote: This lawsuit raises one of the venerable but surprisingly vexing copyright law questions: when is a price copyrightable? That might sound like a stupid question because “facts” aren’t copyrightable and…