Comments on: Wall Street Journal Article and Video on “Throughout the Universe”

By: William M. Klimon

William M. Klimon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:50:55 +0000

Well, yes, “throughout the universe” does sound a bit silly, but I am haunted by New York Times Co. V. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), where, I believe, the use of “in all media” and “in any form” clauses in the relevant licenses with freelance writers would have made the difference for the publishers. With so recent and glaring a precedent to guide us, I think some caution is warranted about dispensing with seemingly overbroad license clauses.

By: Mark Anderson

Mark Anderson — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:22:57 +0000

Perhaps, just, there is an argument for using a word that means more than the World, for some technologies, eg satellites which might go beyond the limits of Earth/World, and where there is a territorial grant of rights. But in that case, why limit it to our universe?

If we are talking about IP licensing (which is where I encounter worldwide licences), I am not aware of eg the Martian Patent Office having granted any patents, so I doubt whether any grant of rights outside the World would have much meaning. It also raises questions as to the lex situs, eg as to the form that any licence for non-World parts of the territory should take. Does Martian law require licences to be in writing signed by both parties, notarised (with an apostille at the Martian Embassy) and filed at the Martian Patent Office?

I was recently involved in negotiations over a pharmaceutical patent licence agreement where our definition of the territory as the world had been changed by the other party to say the universe. We changed it back again, as being just too silly. I would not want someone looking at the agreement in 10 years’ time and wondering who was the plonker who said the universe.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:10:20 +0000

Parallel universes – there is your carve-out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

By: Ken Adams

Ken Adams — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:52:21 +0000

Chris: I revised this post to make it a bit less categorical. My original post on the subject acknowledged that the phrase might serve a purpose in some contexts. Ken

By: Chris Lemens

Chris Lemens — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:58:44 +0000

Ken:

I still think caution is better here. If we had said “worldwide” in a 1930’s agreement, does that mean that the thing can’t be transmitted by satellite? The received wisdom in this field is that there are awkward cases that try to use the circumstances surrounding the deal as limitations on otherwise expansive language. For that reason, I would still use “everywhere and forever” in a grant that I intended to be that broad.

Admittedly, “throughout the universe” does sound funny.

Chris