A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

By Jaehwan Park – Edited by Kayla Haran

Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Bill Encouraging U.S. Government Agencies to Use the Cloud as a Secure Alternative to Legacy Systems

Snapchat Accused of Violating Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Announces New Policy Group to Promote Global Digital Trade

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Second Circuit Prohibits Extraterritorial Application of Stored Communication Act’s Warrant Provision

The Second Circuit reversed a U.S. Magistrate Judge’s warrant ordering Microsoft to produce customer content stored in Ireland. The Second Circuit held that the warrant provisions in § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC §§2701-2712 (1986) (“SCA”), cannot be used to compel a service provider to disclose user e-mail content stored exclusively on a foreign server.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

U.S. District Court Denied TC Heartland’s Writ of Mandamus to Transfer Patent Infringement Suit

 

In April 2016, the Federal Circuit denied TC Heartland LLC’s writ of mandamus. Hartland requested the court order the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement suit initiated by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. In rejecting Hartland’s request, the court explained that a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy appropriate only in exceptional circumstances” and Hartland did not meet this bar.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Congresswoman Speier’s Revenge Pornography Bill: Crossing the First Amendment Line?

On July 14, 2016, Congresswoman Speier proposed the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, a bill designed to make revenge pornography a federal crime punishable with up to five years in prison. Although the current version is narrower in scope than previous iterations, there are still some concerns that this bill violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016.

Read More...

UnknownBy Jaehwan Park – Edited by Kayla Haran

Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Bill Encouraging U.S. Government Agencies to Use the Cloud as a Secure Alternative to Legacy Systems

Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kas.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), along with Representatives Will Hurd (R-Tex.) and Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), introduced identical bills in both the House and Senate to spur government agencies to transition away from unsecure and expensive legacy systems to cloud computing services. The MOVE It (Modernizing Outdated and Vulnerable Equipment and Information Technology) Act will require each government agency to create IT modernization funds using resources that would otherwise be used to operate and maintain legacy systems. In tandem with the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), which vets cloud systems for vulnerabilities, the MOVE It Act is intended to achieve the twin goals of enhancing cybersecurity and reducing spending on legacy systems. The IT Alliance for Public Sector (ITAPS) lauded the companion bills as an opportunity for the federal government to keep pace with technological innovation and deliver greater efficiencies for the taxpayer. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 25 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

13399-surveillance_newsBy Filippo Raso – Edited by Shailin Thomas

Microsoft v. US, Docket No. 14-2985 (2nd. Cir. July 14, 2016) Opinion hosted by DocumentCloud.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit found the Magistrate Judge’s decision rested on a mistaken interpretation of the statute and its legislative history, and accordingly reversed the District Court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash a warrant, reversed the District Court’s finding of civil contempt, and remanded with instructions to quash the warrant insofar as it directs Microsoft to produce customer content stored outside of the United States.

The Second Circuit held that the warrant provisions in § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC §§2701-2712 (1986) (“SCA”), cannot be used to compel a service provider to disclose user e-mail content stored exclusively on a server in a foreign country. In so holding, the Court noted that the SCA granted users a privacy interest in their stored electronic communication, and that the SCA formally recognized that service providers take on a “special role” when acting on behalf of the government. The Fourth Amendment restrictions apply to service providers when acting pursuant to this “special role.” (more…)

Posted On Jul - 25 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

infringementBy Emily Chan – Edited by Evan Tallmadge

In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

In April 2016, the Federal Circuit denied TC Heartland LLC’s (“Heartland”) writ of mandamus. Hartland requested the court order the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement suit initiated by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (“Kraft”). In rejecting Hartland’s request, the court explained that a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy appropriate only in exceptional circumstances” and Hartland did not meet this bar. In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (more…)

Posted On Jul - 25 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

SenateBy Priyanka Nawathe – Edited by Henry Thomas

H. R. Bill – Intimate Privacy Protection Act of 2016

On July 14, 2016, Democratic House Representative Jackie Speier from California’s 14th Congressional District proposed the Intimate Privacy Protection Act (“IPPA”). This legislation is designed to criminalize the display of sexually explicit conduct or body parts of an individual where displayed with a “reckless disregard for [that] person’s lack of consent to the distribution.” The proposed maximum imprisonment time is five years. The bill also contains several exceptions including those for law enforcement, reporting unlawful activity, “bona fide public interest,” and telecommunication and internet services providers who do not promote or solicit such content. Commentary from Sarah Jeong indicates that a prior version of this bill imposed liability on search engines, website operators, and software developers if they did not respond to takedown requests within 48 hours, however, this was removed from the final version of the act. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this legislation is to make revenge pornography a federal crime. As Speier stated, “The damage caused by these attacks can crush careers, tear apart families, and, in the worst cases, has led to suicide.” (more…)

Posted On Jul - 25 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST
Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: Robert ScobleCC BY 2.0

By Emily Chan – Edited by Filippo Raso

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-03561, 2016 WL 3181206 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2016). Motion hosted by Law360.

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 21 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Jaehwan Park - Edited by Kayla Haran Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce ...

13399-surveillance_news

Second Circuit Prohi

By Filippo Raso – Edited by Shailin Thomas Microsoft v. US, ...

infringement

U.S. District Court

By Emily Chan – Edited by Evan Tallmadge In re TC ...

Senate

Congresswoman Speier

By Priyanka Nawathe – Edited by Henry Thomas H. R. Bill ...

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Oracle Renews Motion

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="175"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...