Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • MYarnell on Curricular Reform Revisited

  •  

    Site Meter

Copyright and Bar Exam Questions

posted by Daniel Solove

pmbr.gifA federal district court recently held that PMBR was liable for a copyright violation for using questions from the Multistate Bar Examination in its classes and materials. PMBR, the “Preliminary Multistate Bar Review,” is a bar exam preparation course. The opinion is available here.

The court concluded that many of the questions in PMBR’s materials are similar to those on the Multistate Bar Exam. In assessing damages, the court noted that “[s]ince plaintiff lost no hypothetical royalties, I cannot award actual damages in compensation. I can and will, however, factor the uniquely proprietary nature of the infringed questions

into apportionment of defendants’ profits.” Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiffs nearly $12 million, one third of PMBR’s gross revenues during the time period of the violations. Moreover, the court held:

Defendants will be enjoined from copying, duplicating, distributing, selling, publishing, reproducing, renting, leasing, offering or otherwise transferring or communicating in any manner, orally or in written, printed, photographic or other form, including any communication in any class or other presentation, any questions obtained directly from any of NCBE’s copyrighted secure tests.

Hat tip: Lawschool.com


 August 26, 2006 at 2:07 pm   Posted in: Intellectual Property, Law Practice, Law School   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (6)

  1. James Grimmelmann - August 26, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    The opinion contains a number of damning statements about PMBR, including one that confirms what many students cramming for the bar exam have long suspected: review courses feed you wrong answers.

    At page 11, after reciting a question from the MBE and its nearly identical PMBE cousin, the opinion wryly notes:

    This question tests the same legal concept using the same fictitious statute and four virtually identical answer choices in the same order. As with a number of PMBE questions, the answer key here is incorrect, further undermining Mr. Feinberg’s claims that he derived his questions independently from authoritative legal sources.

  2. Keith Sharfman - August 27, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    This is fascinating, Dan. I wonder of there’s any copyright as well in canddiate answers. The examiners seem to have no problem making model answers available without getting a copyright waiver from the author. Perhaps this case will change things, since it’s hard to see a compelling distinction as a matter of copyright between exam questions and answers.

  3. Keith Sharfman - August 27, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    This is fascinating, Dan. I wonder if there’s any copyright as well in candidate answers. The examiners seem to have no problem making model answers available without getting a copyright waiver from the author. Perhaps this case will change things, since it’s hard to see a compelling distinction as a matter of copyright between exam questions and answers.

  4. LM - August 28, 2006 at 9:57 am

    James, I’m intrigued by your comment (”review courses feed you wrong answers”). I’ve heard/read this from others as well. Being as it is that I’ll be taking the bar in less than a year from now, I have to ask: if bar review courses commonly provide the wrong answers, thereby making the bar exam study process that much more difficult, should students even consider taking a review course? Or would we be better off saving our money for review books purchased on e-bay and a nice post-bar exam vacation?

  5. Frank - August 28, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    My sense of the opinion is that the judge found the course promoters quite distasteful, and wanted to put them out of business.

    I thought the weakest part was the damages section, where he just plucks from nowhere a notion that 1/3 of PMBR’s revenues were due to the 100 or so substantially similar questions.

    Admittedly, PMBR apparently did not submit good information on the companies’ books. But it seems to me that this is a case where statutory damages are far more appropriate than an “accounting of profits.” He could easily have gotten to the $11 million figure by fining them $100,000 per question.

    FWIW, I have a post on this today at madisonian.net.

  6. clvarallo - April 20, 2007 at 10:49 am

    I’ve been in practice a long time and I’m licensed in 3 jurisdictions – soon to be 4 if all goes well this July ‘07. PMBR is by far the best MBE review course I’ve taken, because of the number of practice questions. By the time you get to the exam you’re proficient with (1) time management; (2) legal nuances and distinctions; (3)confidence. There may be a few answers that can go either way in the materials, but it’s usually because the Bar Examiners sometimes give credit for two answers. I would recommend it to any individual studying for the bar exam. And for the guy who was thinking of not taking a review course, that’s just plain stupid. Even if it’s not PMBR, you’ve gotta take a review course.

    CLV

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress