Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 625 FSUPP2D 674 - Microsoft Corp. v. Ram Distribution, LLC

Microsoft Corp. v. Ram Distribution, LLC’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
June 2012
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n · United States v. Monton · Payne v. Pauley

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An individual may incur liability for a corporation’s copyright infringement under two theories: 1) vicarious liability; and 2) contributory liability. An individual is vicariously liable for infringing activity if he has the right and ability to supervise that activity and has an obvious and direct financial interest in the infringing activity. A party may be eontributorily liable if he directly participates in the infringing activity or induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.