Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶28
Amarin’s second (and more germane) case is Grokster, where we described “[t]he classic instance of inducement” as an “advertisement or solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others to commit violations.” 545 U. S., at 937; see Brief for Respondents 21. But statements designed to stimulate others form a narrower category than statements that could stimulate others. And in Grokster, the defendants’ statements fit into that narrower class: Grokster, a distributor of free file-sharing software, “sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted materials.” 545 U. S., at 926. StreamCast, another such distributor, “beamed onto the computer screens of users of Napster,” another notorious file-sharing service, “ads urging the adoption of its OpenNap program, which was designed, as its name implied, to invite the custom of patrons of…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.