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...

Written by Andrew Segna
Edited by Jonathan Allred
Editorial Policy

On October 13, 2010, Valve, a major video game developer, announced Dota 2, its new title, for which it registered the trademark “Dota” with the USPTO on August 6, 2010. This game is a sequel to the extremely popular Defense of the Ancients (abbreviated “Dota”), a“mod” that independent videogame developers created by modifying the game Warcraft III. The trademark registration evoked concern among members of the industry and consumers, especially in light of recent overly aggressive trademark enforcement by Tim Langdell, developer and president of the video game company Edge Games. As developers and publishers acquire and assert control over trademarks, members of the video game community are concerned that mod creators and independent developers could feel intimidated and, fearing liability, not take on certain projects. Naturally, those concerned by aggressive trademark enforcement would prefer that the trademark rights not be granted in the first place. However, even where the law is not able to prevent video game companies from obtaining and enforcing trademark rights in game titles and assets, private policing by members of the video game world can prevent overly aggressive trademark enforcement from disrupting the industry. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 21 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written by Nathan Lovejoy
Edited by Harry Zhou
Editorial Policy

The September 30th issue of Rolling Stone featured an article provocatively titled “How to Save the Music Business” by U2 manager Paul McGuinness. In it, McGuinness shifts a hefty portion of responsibility for online copyright infringement to Internet service providers: “Let’s get real: Do people want more bandwidth to speed up their e-mails or to download music and films as rapidly as possible?”[i] He goes on to argue that service providers should take affirmative steps on behalf of rights holders to prevent illegal file sharing by their customers. This is not a new line of attack, especially in the two years since the Recording Industry Association of America’s (“RIAA”) efforts at suing individual file-sharers have come to an end. McGuinness might have, however, underestimated some of the pitfalls in implementing such a proposal. As rights holders, service providers, and governments in France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and elsewhere begin to embark on various forms of this “graduated response” — an enforcement regime predicated on suspension of accused infringers’ Internet access — we are only now beginning to understand the full range of its complications.

This comment will address procedural due process concerns within a hypothetical legislative-backed graduated response regime in the United States. Although no such system is currently in place, this comment will look to the recently implemented French scheme as a model. Commonly referred to by the acronym of its governing authority — Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet (“HADOPI”) — France’s HADOPI overcame constitutional challenges and began enforcement action earlier this year. If we were to import this type of scheme to the US with the exact same set of procedures, it would run against some of our core procedural values.

This comment begins with a description of what graduated response is in the abstract and addresses some of the motivations for rights holders in pursuing this strategy. Next, the HADOPI model as laid out in France’s “Creation on the Internet” legislation[ii] is examined step-by-step, as a series of distinct enforcement procedures. Finally, this comment will argue that should the US adopt a legislatively-created, French-style graduated response regime, its procedures may be subject to criticism on due process grounds. These issues could be — and likely will be — sidestepped, however, through eschewing legislation in favor of private enforcement agreements. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 13 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written by Greg Tang
Edited by Ian Wildgoose Brown
Editorial Policy

Intel, the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, owes its global leadership position to its x86 microprocessors. Intel and its main competitor, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), command 80.4% and 11.5% of the microprocessor market, respectively. In other words, over 90% of the world’s computers have brains that only understand the x86 instruction set for translating software instructions into computer functioning. Consequently, most computer programs support, if not exclusively, x86 microprocessors. The fact that AMD is their sole surviving competitor in the x86 microprocessor industry is testament to the success of Intel’s aggressive business and legal tactics: the market for almost any other computer hardware component is certain to have a multitude of competitors from around the globe.

Throughout its history, Intel constantly has explored the outer frontiers of the high-tech industry’s legal landscape as it asserted its market dominance, particularly when threatened by competition, and repeatedly has been forced to adjust its strategy when the courts found that it pushed too far. By zealously pursuing this strategy against AMD, Intel has kept AMD at a distant second place in the microprocessor market, despite AMD often offering superior products at lower prices. But Intel occasionally gets in trouble for its liberal use of business and legal force towards AMD. In the last two years, Intel saw the end to several high-profile antitrust cases that it had been tangled up in for years. In May 2009, the European Commission fined Intel a record 1.06 billion Euros for abusing its dominant market position. On November 12, 2009, Intel settled all outstanding antitrust and patent cross-licensing disputes with rival AMD for $1.25 billion. And more recently in August 2010, Intel settled its antitrust case with the FTC by agreeing to several broad restrictions on its relationship with computer manufacturers and its competitors. But Intel’s legal strategy of “trial and error” stems from the company’s formative years, which coincided with the advent of the personal computer. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 4 - 2011 1 Comment READ FULL POST

By Matthew Becker
Edited by Matt Gelfand
Editorial Policy

The application of copyright in the space of virtual worlds has been a subject of increasing consideration in the legal community over the past few years.[i] Literature on this subject has often centered on two focal points: the existing laws and approaches that are likely to produce successful litigation in this evolving arena; and the idea that the best approach to settling copyright disputes might be to try to find recourse through the entity that owns and operates the virtual world, rather than through litigation. Less common, however, is a substantive analysis of why the existing copyright regime generally fails to provide a suitable venue for addressing grievances, and how it could be reformed to better suit the virtual context. The purpose of this article is to foster such a discussion by exploring the disconnect between the copyright regime in the United States, which has evolved in a physical environment, and the distinct problems and requirements that arise in a virtual environment. In the process, this article will explore three options for ameliorating the situation – two that are legal in nature, and one that is extra-legal. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 26 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Alea Mitchell
Edited by Cary Mayberger
Editorial Policy

Innovative hosting of user-generated content on the Internet, and a subsequent increase in unauthorized copyrighted material among this content, means reimagining copyright jurisprudence. The issue of how we protect an owner’s “exclusive” right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform his or her work, while not stifling advances in global communication and technology, underlies the concern in recent infringement suits brought against online hosts like YouTube, eBay, Hi5, and Veoh. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3), (4) (1976). But while the legal system has risen to the challenge with reinterpreted rules and legislation, Facebook continues to defy categorization.

This comment attempts to demonstrate the difficulty in categorizing certain service providers by looking at Facebook in the wake of the Viacom International v. YouTube, Inc. decision, No. 07 CIV. 2103, 2010 WL 2532404, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010), of which Facebook filed a joint amicus brief in support of the defendants. Part I of the comment presents a brief overview of the Viacom court’s interpretation of “safe harbors” provided under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and Facebook’s amicus brief. Part II explores whether certain activities on Facebook constitute copyright infringement. Finally, Part III pools these two together and examines why the DMCA “notice-and-takedown” process, as articulated in Viacom, may not be a workable copyright protection scheme for Facebook. Ultimately, I suggest that Facebook’s blurred private/public structure makes it unlikely that the DMCA notice-and-takedown scheme can adequately protect copyrights infringed by Facebook users. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 17 - 2010 1 Comment 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 ...