Xref: utzoo comp.misc:2805 misc.legal:5204
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!lll-tis!mcb
From: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Intellectual property/copyrights
Summary: 11th Amendment federal jurisdiction case
Message-ID: <22326@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 16 Jul 88 00:30:41 GMT
References: <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <261@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Information Science Consultants, Inc., Pleasanton CA
Lines: 47

In article <261@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
> > There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation
> > (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in
> > this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary
> > damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered
> > to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.)
> > 
> > Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a
> > copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.)
> 
> [The 11th Amendment:]
>     XI. Passed by Congress March 4, 1794.  Ratified February 7, 1795.
> 
>     The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend 
>     to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 
>     United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of 
>     any foreign state.
> 
> [Cramer:]
> Now, this seems to be an utterly absurd reading of the 11th amendment --
> it clearly states that federal courts shall have no jurisdiction for suits
> brought against a State by citizens "of another State" -- and this particular
> case involved a citizen of California suing the State of California.

There's a catch -- a BIG one -- in all of this, which is that while
UCLA, as an instrumentality of the State of California, may not be
subject to Federal jurisdiction, the *individuals* who are accused of
copyright infringement certainly are (and this was part of the
decision).  So nobody's getting away with anything, though if the
individual defendants are penniless or do not have sufficiently "deep
pockets" a full economic recovery might not be possible.

I read about this in one of the lawyer glossies, but it didn't
have a case citation.  If someone provides one, or at least the
parties and the court and the date, I'd love to chase down
the opinion and post salient portions.  I never did any copyright
litigation, and thus don't know the full ins and outs; one question that
comes to my mind is why UCLA cannot be sued in (California) state
court for the copyright claims, leaving aside removal and
pendent-litigation issues.  Or is there a rule that the Federal courts
have sole subject matter jurisdiction over copyright cases?  Or did
the court interpret "the judicial power of the United States" to mean
Federal law claims in state court?  

Michael C. Berch 
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb / ames!lll-tis!mcb