“The Lessons of MGM v.s. Grokster: Innovators have a duty to be wary of misuses of their technology” by Roland L. Trope and E. Michael Power deals with how the Grokster decision effects companies and offers advice on how they must adjust for the future. The authors talk about the larger issue at stake beyond Grokster and other file-sharing services is the “balance between the rights of technological innovators and of those who own artistic works.” Trope and Power offer answers to the questions of if customers use a technology to copy works that infringe on copyright, under what circumstances will the company be liable, as well as if a company is at risk of being liable how they can prevent liability.

Trope and Power note evidence in the Grokster case included emails among employees that were used to show intent of picking up Napster’s customers after Napster would be shut down and how this showed intent of providing a service that encouraged illegal downloading. In reviewing the court’s decision, Trope and Power compiled a list of precautions that companies should take so not to be caught in a similar situation. These include recognizing that business models and plans can be used as evidence in court and that they should be made with that possibility, and reviewing with their lawyers what kinds of expressions can be found damaging should a lawsuit be filed. They also suggest that employees recognize that small statements or remarks can become blown out of proportion and seen on a grander stage in the courtroom. Trope and Power go on to say that the courts are saying that inventors have an increasing duty to be wary of the possible illegal uses of their inventions and must respond with action to try to prevent or limit it.

This article shows that as a result of the Grokster decisions companies are now responsible to not only not have intent for their products to be used illegally but to recognize possible ways that they can be used illegally and take action against it.