JOLT Digest

by Heather Whitney

Google calls competitors’ patent acquisition anticompetitive; Microsoft claims Google was invited

Techcrunch reports that Google accused Microsoft of buying the Nortel patents in order to supress competition from Android, Google’s popular mobile operating system. On Wednesday, Google SVP and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond released a blog post calling, among other things, the recent Nortel patent auction win by a consortium including competitors Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle anticompetitive, done to stifle Android innovation through litigation. On Thursday, Microsoft’s General Counsel, Brad Smith, tweeted a response, explaining that Microsoft asked Google to bid jointly but Google refused. Microsoft’s Head of Communication tweeted a follow-up, attaching an image of an email sent from Kent Walker, Google’s GC, to Microsoft’s GC, where Google expressly declined to bid jointly. Google responded again, as did Microsoft. In the end, Google contends that a joint bid would not have protected Android from patent litigation since Microsoft would have the patents too. Microsoft argues Google refused to join in the bid because Google was looking to buy up additional patents to use to go after Microsoft.

Facebook’s Marketing Director says online anonymity has to “go away”, leaves Facebook to start her own media company

According to the Huffington Post, during a discussion last Tuesday on cyber bullying, Facebook’s Marketing Director Randi Zuckerberg gave a solution: get rid of online anonymity all together. “I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down… I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.” The EFF responded, claiming that while private companies like Facebook can require users to give their real names, requiring anybody roaming the Internet at all to do so constitutes a freedom of expression “disaster”. Faster Forward, a Washington Post blog, reports that, while purportedly unrelated, Zuckerberg submitted her letter of resignation a week and a day later. In her letter, Zuckerberg said she plans to leave and start her own social media company.

Eighth Circuit affirms that student’s IM with threats to third party not protected speech

Education Week reports that the Eighth Circuit, in D.J.M. v. Hannibal Public School District, affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a student’s instant message containing a threat to third party students, sent outside of school, is not protected speech. The Appeals Court found that because the student directed his IMs at a student who could reasonably be seen to forward the threats to the actual victims, it was a true threat. The Eighth Circuit also analyzed the situation under the Tinker “substantial disruption” test, finding that the IM comments, given that they were easy to copy and thus foreseeably likely to be forwarded on to school administrators, constituted such a substantial disruption of the school.

Senator Grassley objects to rumored removal of NIH conflict of interest disclosure requirements.

Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a letter to Office of Management and Budget this week, urging them not to strip a proposed transparency rule of one of its central features – a requirement that universities post the financial conflicts of publicly funded medical researchers on  a public website. Senator Grassley’s letter was prompted by a Nature article reporting that the requirement had been dropped. Senator Grassley also demanded documents related to meetings on the rule attended by Cass Sunstein, the head of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Pharmalot reports that Sunstein is rumored to have disliked the website requirement. Grassley has asked for a response from OMB by August 25.

Eighth Circuit Holds that Use of Public Domain Material Infringes Film Copyright
By Michael Hoven – Edited by Esther Kang

Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Productions, No. 10-1743 (8th Cir. July 5, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the Eastern District of Missouri, which had granted summary judgment to Warner Bros. on its copyright infringement claim and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants (collectively “AVELA”) from licensing images from publicity materials for The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and short films featuring Tom & Jerry. The Eight Circuit remanded the case for modification of the injunction in light of their decision.

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Warner Bros. with regard to AVELA’s reproduction of publicity images, holding that the publicity materials were in the public domain. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Warner Bros. and the permanent injunction prohibiting AVELA’s production of items that evoked copyrightable aspects of the film characters, even when the products featured only images and text extracted from the public domain. In so holding, the court noted that the public’s right to use and modify public domain materials ends when it conflicts with an existing copyright. Because the “increments of expression” that a film adds to a public domain character are copyrightable, a combination of materials that do not independently infringe copyright—such as public domain extracts—may nonetheless infringe on an expressive element of that character that is protected under the film’s copyright.

PIT IP Tech Blog provides an overview of the case. Techdirt criticizes the decision for its expansion of copyright protection at the expense of the public domain. Copyright Litigation Blog questions whether other circuits or the Supreme Court will follow the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning and asserts that modifications of public domain material will fuel litigation in coming years. (more…)

Court Reduces $1.92 Million File-Sharing Jury Award to $54,000
By Dmitriy Tishyevich – Edited by Joey Seiler

Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, No. 06-1497 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2010)
Order

In June 2009 a jury returned a verdict against Defendant Jamie Thomas-Rasset after finding that she willfully infringed the copyrights of twenty-four songs by making them available through a file-sharing program.  The jury awarded Plaintiffs statutory damages of $80,000 for each willful infringement, resulting in a total verdict of $1.92 million.  On January 22, 2010, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis for the District of Minnesota remitted the jury award by 97% to $54,000 ($2,250 per song), three times the statutory minimum, noting that even this reduced award remains “significant and harsh” and finding that it sufficiently serves both the deterrent and the compensatory purposes of statutory damages.

JOLT Digest previously covered the Thomas-Rasset case.  ArsTechnica and Wired report on Judge Davis’ order.  Copyrights and Campaigns comments on the decision and provides continuing coverage of the updates in the case. (more…)

Supreme Court Leaves in Place Eighth Circuit Test Favoring First Amendment Protection for Fantasy Sports
By Dmitriy Tishyevich — Edited by Evie Breithaupt

Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing
8th Circuit, Oct 16, 2007, cert. denied June 2, 2008
Eighth Circuit Opinion, Supreme Court Order

On June 2, the Supreme Court denied petition for a writ of certiorari from Major League Baseball Advanced Media (“MLB”). MLB had sought to appeal the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which held that the First Amendment interests in public information about baseball and baseball players outweighed the players’ state law right of publicity.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court, which had granted summary judgment to CBC, a producer of fantasy major league baseball games. CBC sought a declaratory judgment that it may use, without license, the names of and information about major league baseball players in connection with its for-profit fantasy baseball products.

The Eighth Circuit found that MLB had provided sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action for violation of players’ rights of publicity under Missouri law. It held, however, that under Supreme Court precedent, a state law right of publicity must be balanced against First Amendment considerations. The court found that the CBC’s First Amendment rights superseded the players’ rights of publicity. The majority noted that information meant only to provide entertainment still enjoys First Amendment protection, and it reasoned that the significant public value of information about “the national pastime” entitles it to substantial protection. It noted also that as the information used by CBC was already available in the public domain, it would be “strange law” if CBC did not have a First Amendment right to use information available to everyone else. The court was not persuaded that CBC had violated the economic interests of the players which the right of publicity seeks to protect, noting that the players were already adequately compensated for their participation in games. It also rejected the argument that the non-economic interests protected by the right of publicity, such as rewarding celebrity labors and avoiding emotional harm, were violated, finding that none of these interests were implicated in the context of fantasy baseball.

Judge Colloton dissented. He agreed with the majority’s analysis of the right to publicity and the application of the First Amendment to fantasy baseball, but disagreed as to its resolution of the contractual dispute between the parties.

(more…)