Midway Mfg. Co. v. Strohon’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2009
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 109 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 117 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Gillette Co. v. Miner · Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders · Flick-Reedy Corp. v. Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co. · Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is quite possible to design a game that would infringe Midway's audiovisual copyright but would use an entirely different computer program.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“sets of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.