PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Band has written extensively on intellectual property
and electronic commerce matters. He co-authored Interfaces
on Trial: Intellectual Property and Interoperability in
the Global Software Industry (Westview Press 1995),
a book concerning the unprotectability of software interface
specifications and the permissibility of software reverse
engineering. Interfaces on Trial received favorable
reviews in 3 International Journal of Law and Information
Technology 198 (1995), 15 Journal of International Law
and Business 707 (1995), 20 New Matter 35 (1995), 9 Harvard
Journal of Law and Technology 585 (1996), and 7 Law and
Politics Book Review 206 (May 1997). Additionally, Mr.
Band contributed the chapter on publicity rights in Chisum
& Jacobs, World Intellectual Property Guidebook—United
States (Matthew Bender & Co. 1992). Mr. Band
also authored or co-authored over 60 articles listed below.
Mr. Band’s articles have been used in classes at
the Harvard Law School, Business School and Kennedy School
of Government; the Georgetown University Law Center; the
New York University School of Law; Columbia University
Law School; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; University
of California, Berkeley, School of Information Management
& Systems; Kellogg Graduate School of Management;
Northwestern University; University of Tennessee; Wayne
State University Law School; Lewis & Clark Law School;
and the University of California, Irvine, Department of
Information and Computer Science.
Judge Posner cited one of Mr. Band's articles in Assessment
Technologies of Wisconsin v. Wiredata, Inc., 350 F.3d
640, 645 (7th Cir. 2003). Mr. Band’s writings have
been cited in journals published by the Harvard, Stanford,
Columbia, Berkeley, UCLA, Hofstra, Buffalo, Brooklyn,
Southern California, Oregon, Denver, Cardozo, Connecticut,
New York, Florida, Chicago-Kent, Franklin Pierce, George
Washington, Georgia State, Valpraiso, Vanderbilt, Villanova,
Virginia, Rutgers, Ohio State, Texas, Temple, Dickinson,
and DePaul Law Schools, as well as the High Technology
Law Review, Tech Law Journal, AIPLA Quarterly Journal,
the National Law Journal, The Computer Lawyer, the Journal
of Law and Commerce, and a study issued by the National
Research Council.
The majority of these articles are in Adobe Acrobat PDF
Format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, it can
be downloaded
for free here.
Mr. Band authored or co-authored the following articles:
• "Publish AND Perish? Protecting Your Copyrights From Your Publisher," American Society for Cell Biology Newsletter (May 2008).
• "Israel Now Has The Right Copyright Law," Jerusalem Post (March 28, 2008).
• "Google and Fair Use," 3 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 1 (2008).
• "Educational Fair Use Today," Association of Research Libraries Website (December 2007).
• "The Perfect 10 Trilogy," Computer Law Review International (October 2007).
• "USA: ISP Liability for Third Party Contents -- Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC et al.," Computer Law Review International (August 2007).
• "Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com," [2007] E-Commerce Law Reports 6
• "Perfect 10 v. Google," [2007] E-Commerce Law Reports 12
• "A New Day for Website Archiving: Field v. Google and Parker v. Google," Association of Research Libraries Website (November 2006).
• Jerry Leiber v. Consumer Empowerment, [2006] E-Commerce Law Reports 22.
• "Perfect 10 v. Google," E-Commerce Law Reports 22 (2006)
• "Grokster in the International Arena," Computer Law Review International (February 2006)
• "BMG Music v. Cecilia Gonzalez," (2005) E-Commerce Law Reports 14
• "The Google Library Project: Both Sides of the Story," Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification 1(2) (2006)
• "The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate," American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy Brief (January 2006) (in Spanish)
• "Copyright Owners v. The Google Library Project," 17 Entertainment Law Review 21 (January 2006), Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce (December 2005).
• "Caught in a Blizzard," Journal of Internet Law (November 2005)
• "So What Does Inducement Mean?" The Computer & Internet Lawyer (November 2005)
• "Australian Court Finds for Music Company," E-Commerce Law and Strategy (October 2005)
• "The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis," E-Commerce Law & Policy (August 2005), Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce (December 2005).
• "Peer-to-Peer:
The Supreme Court Showdown," Electronic Business Law (July 2005)
• "The Blackmun Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes of a Quarter
of a Century of Supreme Court Jurisprudence," 28 Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 315 (2005)
•
"MGM v. Grokster: Balancing Creativity and Innovation," E-Commerce Law & Policy (June 2005)
• "American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission,"
[2005] E-Commerce Law Reports 16.
• "The
Database Debate in the 108th Congress: The Saga Continues," 27 European Intellectual Property Review 205 (2005)
• "Dastar, Attribution, and Plagiarism," 33 AIPLA Quarterly Journal 1 (2005)
• "A New Perspective on Temporary Copies: The Fourth Circuit's
Opinion in CoStar v. LoopNet," 2005 Stanford Technology
Law Review 1 (2005)
• “MGM v
Grokster: Supreme Court Set to Join the Battle,”
E-Commerce Law & Policy (March 2005)
• "The
Grokster Playlist," Electronic Commerce & Law
Report (March 2005)
• "Database
Debate in the 108th Congress: Deja Vu All Over Again,"
The Computer & Internet Lawyer (January 2005)
• "A New
Day for the DMCA: The Chamberlain and Lexmark Decisions,"
Electronic Commerce & Law Report (November, 2004)
• "How
to Temper the Excesses of the DMCA," Legal Times
(October 2004)
• "Response
to the Coalition Against Database Piracy Memorandum,"
The Computer & Internet Lawyer (May 2004)
• "Members
of Congress Declare War on P2P Networks," Journal
of Internet Law (October 2003)
• “Toward
a Bright-Line Approach to [Trademark] sucks.com,”
The Computer & Internet Lawyer (July 2003)
• "Backlash:
Legislative Responses To Entertainment Industry Initiatives
in the 107th Congress," Journal of Internet Law (March
2003)
• "New
Theories of Database Protection," Managing Intellectual
Property (March 2003)
• "Banning
Hate Speech Poses Hidden Risks," The Jerusalem Report
(December 2002)
• "Congress
Unknowingly Undermines Cyber-Security," San Jose
Mercury (December 2002)
• "Vigilantes
on the Cyberspace Frontier: The Berman P2P Bill,"
Asian IP (September 2002)
• "Convention
Raises Issues For ISPs," National Law Journal (July
2002)
• "Safe Harbors
Against the Liability Hurricane: The Communications Decency
Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," 20
Cardoza Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 295 (2002)
• "Closing
the Interoperability Gap: NCCUSL's Adoption of a Reverse
Engineering Exception in UCITA," The Computer &
Internet Lawyer (May 2002)
• "The
USA-PATRIOT Act," Computer Und Recht International
(February 2002)
• "Database
Cases Decided During the 106th Congress: Underprotection
or Overprotection?" 32 West Los Angeles Law Review
201 (2001)
• "The
Database Protection Debate in the 106th Congress,"
62 Ohio State Law Journal 869 (2001)
• “The
Copyright Paradox,” Brookings Review (Winter 2001);
MCN Spectra (Fall 2001)
•"Beyond Napster; Debating the Future of Copyright
On the Internet," 50 American University Law Review
371 (2000)
• “Rules
to Live By: The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Sony
v. Connectix,” Stanford Technology Law Review (June
2000)
• “The
Problem With UCITA,” ipnetwork.com (June 2000)
•“Should Public Policy Support Open Source
Software?” The American Prospect.org (April 2000)
• “The
Database Protection Debate in the United States,”
AAAS Science Technology Policy Yearbook and Derecho Y
Nuevas Tecnolgias (in Spanish) (2000)
• “Paragraph
52: A Window into Judge Jackson’s Findings of Fact,”
The Computer Lawyer (March 2000)
• “Software
Reverse Engineering Amendments in Singapore and Australia,”
Journal of Internet Law (January 2000)
• “The
Superhighway to Jericho: Good Samaritan Laws,” Journal
of Internet Law (August 1999)
• “The
New US Anti-Circumvention Provision: Heading in the Wrong
Direction,” Computer Law and Security Report (July-August
1999)
• “Making
the World Safe for Databases,” IP Magazine (April
1999)
• “The
New Anti-Circumvention Provisions in the Copyright Act:
A Flawed First Step,” Cyberspace Lawyer (Feb. 1999)
• “Peace
At Last? Executive and Legislative Branch Endorsement
of Recent Software Copyright Case Law,” The Computer
Lawyer (Feb. 1999)
• “The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act: A Balanced Result,”
European Intellectual Property Review (Feb. 1999); Stanford
Technology Law Review (Sept. 1999); and 37 Institute of
Intellectual Property (Spring 1997) (in Japanese);
• “Armageddon
on the Potomac: The Collections of Information Antipiracy
Act,” D Lib (Jan. 1999)
• “The Digital
Millennium Copyright Act,” World Intellectual Property
Report (Dec. 1998), Computer Law Reporter (Jan. 1999),
and Electronic Banking Law and Commerce Report (Jan. 1999)
• “The
WIPO Copyright Treaty: A New International Intellectual
Property Framework for the Digital Age,” in The
Annual Review of Communications (International Engineering
Consortium 1998)
• “Congress
Makes Little Progress on New Intellectual Property Bills,”
The Intellectual Property Strategist (March 1998)
• “Gunboat
Diplomacy on the Pearl River: The Tortuous History of
the Software Reverse Engineering Provisions of Hong Kong’s
New Copyright Bill,” The Computer Lawyer (February
1998)
•
“Battle Lines Form Over WIPO Copyright Bills,”
National Law Journal (Jan. 26, 1998)
• “Competing
Definitions of ‘Openness’ on the GII,”
in The Unpredictable Certainty: Information Infrastructure
Through 2000 (National Research Council 1997)
• “The
Economic Espionage Act: A Review of Its Application in
Year One,” The Corporate Counselor (Nov. 1997)
• “The
Left Hand and the Right Hand,” Total News (Oct.
1997)
• “Interoperability
in the Pacific Rim: Reversal of Fortunes in Singapore
and Australia,” Journal of Proprietary Rights (July
1997)
• “Sui
Generis Database Protection: Is It Really Necessary?,”
New Matter (Spring/Summer 1997)
• “Internet
Indecency Decision Points Way to Future Copyright Rulings,”
Intellectual Property Strategist (July 1997)
• “Sui
Generis Database Protection,” The Far Cry (Summer
1997)
• “Balanced
Intellectual Property Rights for the Digital Age: The
New WIPO Copyright Treaty,” Global Networking 97
(Proceedings of the Global Networking ‘97 Conference)
(1997)
• “Sui
Generis Database Protection: Has Its Time Come?,”
D-Lib (June 1997)
•“New U.S. Law Hits at Foreign Theft of Trade
Secrets,” IP Worldwide (Jan./Feb. 1997)
• “You
Say Misuse, I Say Fair Use,” The Computer Lawyer
(Nov. 1996)
• “Conflict
in Commonwealth Courts: A Review of Recent Software Interoperability
Decisions in Singapore and Australia,” Journal of
Proprietary Rights (July 1996)
• “Interoperability
in the Pacific Rim: Decisions in Singapore and Australia,”
Computer Industry Litigation Reporter 22575 (July 1996)
• “Online
Service Provider Liability,” International Commercial
Litigation (April 1996)
• “Interoperability
After Lotus v. Borland: The Ball Is in the Lower Courts
Again,” The Computer Lawyer (March 1996)
• “Throwing
Out the Baby with the Bathwater, or Can Congress Prohibit
Anticopy Circumvention Devices Without Preventing Legitimate
Copying?,” 23 Computer Law Reporter 7 (March 1996)
• “Oral
Argument in Lotus Foreshadows Outcome,” Intellectual
Property Strategist (Jan. 1996)
• “Liability:
The Web’s Big Worry,” San Francisco Examiner
(Oct. 18, 1995)
• “Interoperability
Down Under: The Australian Copyright Law Review Committee’s
Final Report,” The Computer Lawyer (July 1995)
• “From
the Green Paper to the White Paper: Intellectual Property
and the National Information Infrastructure,” IV-6
International Legal Strategy 43 (June 1995) (in Japanese)
and The Annual Review of Communications (International
Engineering Consortium 1996) (in English)
• “Lotus
v. Borland Viewed Through the Lens of Interoperability,”
The Computer Lawyer (June 1995) and Computer Law and Practice
135 (1995)
• “Protection
of Computer Programs Under Japanese Copyright Law,”
in Tricks of the Trade: Intellectual Property in the United
States and Japan (IC2 Institute 1995)
• “Competing
Definitions of Openness on the NII,” in Standards
Policy for Information Infrastructure (MIT Press 1995)
• “Intellectual
Property Issues in the Multimedia Industry,” in
the Annual Review of Communications (International Engineering
Consortium 1994-95)
• “Matrox
Electronic Systems v. Gaudreau,” 6 European Intellectual
Property Review D-138 (1994)
• “A
Brave New World? Intellectual Property Litigation in the
Multimedia Industry,” in Forging the Link: Market
- Technology - Policy (Proceedings of the Multimedia Communications
’93 Conference) and in Japanese in 22 Journal of
the Japanese Institute of International Business 695 (1994)
• “The
Marshall Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making
of Sony v. Universal,” 17 Columbia-VLA Journal of
Law & the Arts 427 (1993)
• “Computer
Associates Crosses the Atlantic and Lake Ontario: Richardson
v. Flanders and Delrina v. Triolet,” The International
Computer Lawyer (June 1993)
• “The
Fair Use Bill: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Congress,”
The Computer Lawyer (March 1993)
• "The
Impact of the U.S. Presidential Election on U.S.-Japan
Relations," Stakeholders (December 1992)(in Japanese)
• “The
U.S. Decision in Computer Associates v. Altai Compared
to the EC Software Directive: Transatlantic Convergence
of Copyright Standards Favoring Software Interoperability,”
Computer Law and Practice 137 (1992)
• “The
Proposed EC Database Directive: The Reversal of Feist
v. Rural Telephone?,” The Computer Lawyer (June
1992)
• “Feist
v. Rural Telephone: The Beginning of the End of Software
Overprotection?,” The Computer Lawyer (July 1991)
|
|
Praise for
Interfaces
on Trial:
"...a well written, thoroughly researched history of
the interoperability debate...."
"...a book that scholars, lawyers, and business professionals
can find informative, interesting and useful...."
"...a readable account of a fascinating debate...."
"...an important and timely contribution to the field...."
"... a useful framework for understanding and analyzing the
computer interface interoperability debate...."
"Band and Katoh are especially adept at making complex legal
and technical issues understandable."
|
|