work's publication, and court reporters cannot hold copyrights on the cases compiled in the course of their work. Being notable for the first United States Supreme Court ruling on copyright.Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Genetically modified organisms can be patented. According to the court a living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952.Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Manufacturers of home video recording machines cannot be liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential uses by their purchasers because the devices are sold for legitimate purposes and have substantial non-infringing uses. Personal use of the machines to record broadcast television programs for later viewing constitutes fair use.Selle v. Gibb, 741 F. 2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) Substantial similarity is not enough in the absence of proof of access. Evidence of access must extend beyond mere speculation. De rigueur, not a Supreme Court case but only of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, and therefore binding precedent only within its jurisdiction (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin).Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., Originality, not sweat of the brow, is required for a work to obtain copyright protection.A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) Peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service Napster could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyrights.Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Naturally occurring DNA sequences, even when isolated from the body, cannot be patented, but artificially created DNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, Software that merely uses generic computing hardware to perform a pre-existing abstract idea is not patent eligible. OtherSwift v. Tyson, Federal courts hearing cases were bound to follow the statutory laws of states that they were asked to enforce, but not the state's common law. The goal was to encourage the development of a federal common law; since that did not occur, the decision was overruled almost a century later by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins.Luther v. Borden, Established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.Selective Draft Law Cases, The Selective Service Act of 1917 and, more generally, conscription do not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude or the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of thought.Dillon