Draft talk:Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.

This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Intellectual property (inactive) This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property Law This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw

I need to re-emphasize again, that a text from US Court Documents can never be copyrighted, and it/they is/are in the public domain from the moment of creation. Even attempts by US States to impose some form of copyright fees/restrictions on annotated State (not Federal) legal cases have been overturned by SCOTUS: https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-rules-states-cant-copyright-annotated-laws/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court.%20%28Jack%20Rodgers%2FCourthouse%20News%29%20WASHINGTON,annotated%20versions%20of%20state%20codes%20cannot%20be%20copyrighted. Furthermore, it is most appropriate to recite the exact language of the Court's ruling in this case with enumerated criteria, rather than to rewrite it as a "prose". Walter Tau (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]