Grokster: The Case is Submitted
by ALEX HALDERMAN
Freedom to Tinker, publication date: 01 April 2005
"On the other hand, some of the Justices were no more receptive to Grokster's interpretation of the Betamax defense, under which products 'merely capable of substantial non-infringing use' would not be subject to liability. Justice Ginsberg called this an overly simplistic reading of Sony and pointed out that the decision continues for 13 pages of nuanced discussion after the phrase cited by Grokster. She also emphasized differences between Grokster's product and the Betamax: the primary use of the Betamax was found to be non-infringing, but the district court in the present case established that at least 90% of Grokster's traffic infringed."