Question: Over an approximately forty-year time span, several well-known authors gave Random House, Inc., an exclusive license to "print, publish, and sell" their specific works "in book form." The authors later individually contracted with Rosetta Books, giving Rosetta Books a license to print exactly the same text as electronic books, or e-books. The e-books would have different online covers, title pages, and forewords, along with various other features unique to the electronic format. When the e-books came out in 2001, Random House filed a suit against Rosetta Books, alleging copyright infringement and asking for an injunction to prohibit Rosetta from offering these works in digital form.

Assume that you are the judge in the federal court hearing this case and answer the following questions.

1. A central issue in this case has to do with how to interpret the language of the contract (license) between the parties, particularly with respect to the phrase "in book form." Should the phrase be interpreted to include electronic books? Why or why not?

2. What will your ruling be in this case? How will your interpretation of the phrase "in book form" affect your ruling?

3. Some of the contracts were signed long before electronic books became an option for publishers. Should this fact affect your interpretation of the phrase "in book form"?