I'm not going to argue patent law. I'm not a lawyer. It's pretty simple to me though ... if you own a patent, you reap the dividends from that process, compostition or innovation as long as the patent is active. But, there is no dividend until someone decides that they want to buy the product or service borne through this innovation. That's not a given, observe any biomedical, pharmaceutical, software or entertainment company. WalMart buys a can of corn for 74 cents and sells it for 94 cents six days later. They need to make enough margin on all the stuff they sell to cover their expenses and make a targeted profit.
Merck has to spend tens of millions of dollars over several years in R&D, clinical testing, regulatory approval, market acceptance and production and logistic implementation before they make DOLLAR ONE. Even then, there might be something from Baxter that is similar that is better priced or marketed and causes a large negative ROI on Mercks new product. That's the way it goes in that business. They hunt and peck for the golden goose. That's why Merck and Upjohn need airtight patents, that's why Medtronic needs airtight patents, that's why Dupont and Johnson & Johnson and TRW need patents, and that's why Warner Brothers and Universal need copyright protections, and why musicians and Microsoft and Adobe need copyright protections, and why brandnames need Trademark protection, and media outlets need copyright protection on the material they gather, they write, they edit and they present as a distinct and unique product offering. It's the basis of our commercial law, and it is the engine that drives American innovation and technological advancement. It my competitor has a patent on process A to serve a market I need to get into, I'm going to push for the invention of process B. It's a pretty good system.
Carrier Pigeon, Newspaper, Fax on Demand or World Wide Web, this court case says that the presentation mileu is wholly irrelevant to the protection of the propreitary material. If Jim was funding this site out of pocket as a humanitarian gesture for the education and enlightenment of this Bowery, it would be a fair use case and his diversion from trafficking through the owners web site might be more valid. I'm not sure about that though. The internet presents a platform for the mass dissemination of proprietary information. Fair Use doctrine was developed around a physical media that had practical limitations on use. It's usually one person per paper per time. That's not a threat to the value of the information on a wide market scale. I don't think there will ever be a fair use exemption for copyright material on the Web ... any immediate and global presentation of copyright material that bypasses a copyright holders revenue opportunity is unfair. Jim could win the lottery and wish to sponser this site, but if he posts Washington Post copyright text he still is negatively influencing their business prospects. So, we go on. I assume if some other media outlet requests a cease and desist order, we'll comply. Frankly, I'd recommend just requiring that poster link a list of large media players like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Fox, Newsweek, CBS etc. ... it'll save a lot of grief and demonstrate to any future arbiter that we are serious about our legal responsibilites. Just put them on the link list up front.