|
''Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.'', 650 F. 3d 876 (2nd Cir. 2011), was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision〔 of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms (Barclays Investment Bank, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch) against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act (, , and ).〔 The case was significant because the Second Circuit redefined elements of the "Hot-news" Misappropriation tort, breaking with earlier Second Circuit precedent by holding that such precedent was not binding, but merely ''obiter dicta''.〔 According to some legal commentators, the decision would have the effect of making it more difficult for future plaintiffs to bring claims under the hot-news misappropriation doctrine, at least in the Second Circuit.〔 ==Story of the Case== The defendant, Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., was a company that was in the business of obtaining, by various means, daily stock recommendations prepared by the plaintiffs, Lehman Brothers (later purchased by Barclays Investment Bank), Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch, in their highly sought-after research reports. The defendant sold a service wherein subscribers could receive these recommendations prior to their release by the plaintiffs to the general public. The plaintiffs claimed that the value of the reports to their own clients was predicated on the reports' exclusivity, accuracy, and timely release (they were often only valuable during the few hours before the stock market would open) and whose value to the firms in turn was predicated on their potential to attract and retain clients, to entice clients to execute stock trades through them, and to differentiate themselves from other financial services firms and for generating revenue by way of commissions earned from facilitating trades on behalf of those clients.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 879.〕 On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against Theflyonthewall.com ordering them to cease distributing portions of the exclusive research reports as well as the recommendations within them.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 885.〕 The plaintiffs sought to base their request for injunctive relief on two sets of legal claims: 1) claims that the defendant had violated their copyright in the research reports by verbatim copying and dissemination of portions of the reports and; 2) claims that the defendant had committed the common-law tort of "hot-news" misappropriation by publishing the recommendations within the reports.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 885-6.〕 In the procedural lead-up to the trial, the defendants essentially conceded their liability under the copyright claim. Thus, at a bench trial before the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the remaining issues to be tried were the appropriate relief for the copyright claim, as well as liability and relief for the hot-news misappropriation claim.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 886-7.〕 On March 18, 2010, the District Court found in favour of the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction ordering the defendants to cease their publication of the plaintiffs' reports and recommendations (see summary of the court's decision below.) Shortly thereafter,〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 889.〕 the defendants appealed the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The defendants abandoned their defence against the copyright claims and focused solely on the hot-news misappropriation findings. They argued that the District Court had erred in finding that the hot-news misappropriation claim had been established, that the claim (made under state law) was pre-empted and therefore barred by federal copyright legislation, and that the resulting injunction was improperly granted, was overbroad, and violated the defendant's free speech rights under the First Amendment.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra'', at 890.〕 On June 20, 2011, the Second Circuit released its decision - reversing the decision of the District Court below, and instructing it to dismiss the claim.〔''Barclay's'' (2nd Cir.), ''supra''.〕 A summary of the Second Circuit's decision can also be found below. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|