Fostering the Business of Innovation: The Untold Story of Bowers v. Baystate Technologies

23 Pages Posted: 15 Dec 2011 Last revised: 10 May 2016

Date Written: December 13, 2011


Perhaps the law review literature does not need another essay on the Federal Circuit’s Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case. That case has received more than its share of attention from commentators, all criticizing Judge Rader’s majority opinion and most extolling the virtues of Judge Dyk’s dissent. Despite the storm of scholarly criticism, however, courts have followed Judge Rader’s opinion. This essay tells the untold story of why courts have been wise to do so. The essay explains how commentators have argued that federal intellectual property law should have preempted Bowers’ claims for breach of a shrinkwrap license prohibition on reverse engineering. Instead, Judge Rader’s majority opinion eliminated Bowers’ copyright claim by refusing to award Bowers any remedies for copyright infringement and hinted that in many instances contract damages for breach of a prohibition on reverse engineering would be de minimus. By using remedies rather than federal law preemption, Judge Rader’s approach achieved a result that was fairer to the parties and more congruent with sound innovation policy and the business of innovation.

Keywords: license, shrinkwrap, copyright, contract, preemption, reverse engineering, remedies, Bowers, Baystate, Judge Rader

Suggested Citation

Gomulkiewicz, Robert W., Fostering the Business of Innovation: The Untold Story of Bowers v. Baystate Technologies (December 13, 2011). Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, Vol. 7, pp. 445-66, 2012, University of Washington School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-31, Available at SSRN:

Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (Contact Author)

University of Washington - School of Law ( email )

William H. Gates Hall
Box 353020
Seattle, WA 98105-3020
United States


Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics