View article

MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. I was that the Court would explore the contours of its decision in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 2 And in fact the Court did just that, but not in the manner most expected or hoped. To the surprise of many-and consternation of some-the Court imported 35 USC § 271 (b) active inducement from patent law into copyright law3 just as it had imported 35 USC § 271 (c) contributory infringement in Sony. 4 In so doing, the Court avoided addressing the language in Sony that precluded contributory copyright infringement for devices that are" capable of substantial noninfringing uses."'5 This judicialsidestepping has interesting implications for active inducement law, now both in patent and copyright law. Particularly, the Supreme Court's concern with the seemingly nefarious intent of Grokster highlights the important and uncertain role of intent in assessing infringement under section …