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

ITC’s review of an ALJ’s order was not procedurally sound
By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously vacated and remanded a decision of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), finding that the ITC exceeded its authority in reviewing an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) order denying a motion for termination. In so holding, the Court rejected the ITC’s attempt to characterize the ALJ’s decision as an initial determination, which would be subject to review.

Read More...

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

Facebook’s experiment of emotional contagion raises concerns
By Jenny Choi – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 17, 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences released a study in which Facebook reduced positive and negative posts on News Feeds to observe any changes in the participants’ posts to test whether emotional states are contagious through verbal expressions. Many have criticized Facebook for the experiment,  finding that Facebook has deceived its users, violated past Consent Orders, and stretched the users’ terms of service agreements too far.

Read More...

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

Georgia Supreme Court Takes Chan v. Ellis Appeal to Redefine First Amendment Right on the Internet
By Yixuan Long – Edited by Emma Winer

The Georgia Court of Appeals ordered the appeal in Ellis v. Chan be transferred to the Georgia Supreme Court. Chan, an interactive website owner, appealed the trial court’s permanent protective order, which commanded him to take down more than 2000 posts on his website, and forbade him from coming within 1000 yards of Ellis. The Court of Appeals decided that the case raised significant constitutional issues regarding the First Amendment right on the internet.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ken Winterbottom

Access to nude photos is a ‘perk’ of working at the NSA, Snowden says

Record label slams YouTube star with copyright infringement suit

Study shows women are still underrepresented among technology leaders

Read More...

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

SDNY Holds Bitcoins Fall Under Purview of Federal Money Laundering Statute

By Amanda Liverzani  Edited by Mengyi Wang

The debate surrounding the legal status of Bitcoins continued to heat up, as the Southern District of New York weighed in on whether the virtual currency could be used to launder money under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h). In a July 9, 2014 opinion penned by Judge Forrest in United States v. Ulbricht, the court held that exchanges involving Bitcoins constitute “financial transactions” for purposes of the money laundering statute, noting that “[a]ny other reading would—in light of Bitcoins’ sole raison d’etre—be nonsensical.”

Read More...

Eli Lilly Granted Stay Extension, Prevents Teva’s Generic Alternative Until March 9th
By Brian Kozlowski – Edited by Anna Lamut

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharma
Federal Circuit, February 24, 2009, No. 2009-1071
Opinion

On February 24th, the Federal Circuit affirmed two to one an order by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana extending the 30-month statutory stay on FDA approval of Teva Pharmaceuticals‘ generic version of Eli Lilly‘s postmenopausal osteoporosis drug, Evista®. The stay was extended until March 9, 2009, when trial was set to begin for Lilly’s suit against Teva, in which Lilly alleged that Teva infringed four method patents.  Teva filed for and received an expedited appeal.  Judge Rader, writing for the two-judge majority with Chief Judge Michel, found that Teva “fail[ed] to ‘reasonably cooperate’” in expediting the lawsuit by altering its product last minute and because of multiple delays in producing critical discovery. Controversially, the court based its decision also on allowing Eli Lilly the time to prepare, rather then solely on the factors mandated by the statute.

Patent Docs offers a description of the case’s history, and Patently-O provides a summary of the case.

Patent Baristas notes the importance of even a short stay: Evista accounted for $1.075 billion in sales in 2008, meaning that a two-week extension could mean revenues of $41 million.

Patent Hawk’s Patent Prospector notes surprise at Judge Prost’s dissent, stating that “[f]or a court that regularly takes liberties interpreting the law, Prost strikes a pose as a religious constructionist to statute.”
(more…)

Posted On Mar - 2 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Public Trials Should Be Made Available Via Internet
By: Debbie Rosenbaum*
Editorial Policy

File-Sharing Cases in Courts Around the World
In February, the four men behind the popular file-sharing site The Pirate Bay went to trial in Stockholm, Sweden.  They stand accused of helping millions of Internet users illegally download protected movies, music, and computer games. The defendants – Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, and Carl Lundström – face up to two years in prison and a fine of 1.2 million kronor (US $143,529) if convicted of being accessories and conspiracy to break Swedish copyright law.  The case has made headlines not only because of the substantive legal issues, but also because Defendant Peter Sunde, co-founder of The Pirate Bay, has called for the court’s proceedings to be as open as possible. The Swedish court granted Sunde’s motion to allow coverage of the proceedings without much resistance, and SVT, a public broadcaster in Sweden, has provided streaming audio webcasts webcasts of trial.

A similar situation is unfolding in the United States in a high-profile case involving issues very similar to those of The Pirate Bay case, although here there has been significant resistance for the defendant’s calls to open the proceedings to the public.  Joel Tenenbaum is one of the tens of thousands of defendants being sued by the RIAA for allegedly violating their members’ copyrights by distributing files through P2P file sharing software. However, unlike the vast majority of the defendants in these cases, he chose to litigate rather than settle his case rather than settle, with the help of Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson and a team of his students. With Professor Nesson’s assistance, Tenenebaum filed a motion similar to Sunde’s, requesting his trial be broadcast live via the Internet. Tenenbaum’s motion asked the Court to exercise its discretion under the Court’s local rules to allow Internet access to the courtroom by authorizing the Courtroom View Network (“CVN“) to provide audio visual coverage of the proceedings in this case over the Internet.

(more…)

Posted On Feb - 28 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Video Game Act Terminated by the Ninth Circuit
By Brittany Blueitt- Edited by Anna Lamut

Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Schwarzenegger
February 20, 2009, Case No. 07-16620
Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, enjoining the enforcement of an Act that imposed a mandatory labeling requirement for all “violent” video games and prohibited the sale of such games to minors. 

The Ninth Circuit held that the Act posed a presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit also held that the Act’s labeling requirement constituted unconstitutionally compelled speech because it did not require disclosure of purely factual information, but required the carrying of the State’s opinion as to the nature of the video game.  In so holding, the Court noted that “minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.”

Briefs are available here. 

The Wall Street Journal highlights that the state, in defending the law, argued that violence and sex should be governed by analogous prohibitions: the government can prohibit the sale of explicit pornography to minors, and so it should also be able to limit the sale of ultra-violent video games.

Ars Technica notes that should this case reach the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that the Court will discover anything that the court of appeals failed to notice. 

(more…)

Posted On Feb - 28 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses Boring v. Google, Inc.
By Aaron Dulles – Edited by Jay Gill

Boring v. Google, Inc.
Western District of Pennsylvania, February 17, 2009, No. 08-694
District Court Memorandum Opinion

A magistrate judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed all claims by Aaron and Christine Boring against Google for photographs taken of the Borings’ house and pool for use in the Street View feature of Google Maps. The Borings had filed suit in April 2008 after discovering pictures of their house on Google’s Street View. They noticed that the pictures were taken from their unpaved driveway, which had allegedly been marked with signs reading “Private Road” and “No Trespassing.”

Law.com cites EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston as stating that Google might, in some cases, be held liable for the actions of their Street View photographers. Calling the lawsuit silly, blogger Eric Goldman was nonetheless concerned that the magistrate judge appeared to punish the Borings for bringing increased attention to themselves by filing suit publicly. InformationWeek discussed the judge’s reasoning, reporting that the Borings had not used Google’s own opt-out procedure before filing suit. PlexLex notes that a side effect of the lawsuit is that news agencies’ use of the photos of the Borings’ property has been rendered more permissible as fair use of copyrighted material.

The Pittsburgh Metblogs raises the question of why Google is under fire in light of the amount of publicly available information on the Allegheny County website, and CNET News notes that Google has been under criticized for their Street View photography before.

(more…)

Posted On Feb - 25 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Motion to Keep Secret the Identities of Alleged Copyright Infringers Denied: State University of New York at Albany Forced to Reveal Students’ Identities
By Tyler Lacey – Edited by Jay Gill

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16
N.D.N.Y., February 18, 2009,
No. 1:08-CV-765
Order

On February 18, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of the Northern District of New York denied a motion to quash a subpoena that would force the State University of New York at Albany (SUNYA) to reveal the identities of 16 students (“Doe Defendants”) alleged to have illegally shared music files.

The defendants raised four claims: “(1) the Subpoena is an infringement of their First Amendment Rights, (2) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, (3) the Complaint fails to state a cause of action; and, (4) the joinder of all Doe Defendants into this single action is improper.” The court ruled against the students on all four of these arguments. The court dismissed the students’ First Amendment claim to the right to privacy by declaring that the “modest First Amendment right to remain anonymous when there is an allegation of copyright infringement” must be balanced against a “copyright owner’s right to disclosure of the identity of a possible trespasser of its intellectual property interest,” and found that in this case the balance weighed on the side of disclosure. The court found the students’ personal jurisdiction and joinder challenges unpersuasive, as their merits cannot be properly determined while identities of the defendants had not yet been disclosed. It similarly denied the claim that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, holding that this claim is essentially a 12(b)(6) motion. Such a motion, the court reasoned, is procedurally improper at this point, as no complaint has been officially served on the Doe Defendants.

(more…)

Posted On Feb - 23 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
invisalign-braces

ITC’s review of an

ITC’s review of an ALJ’s order was not procedurally sound By ...

Photo By: mkhmarketing - CC BY 2.0

Facebook’s experim

Facebook’s experiment of emotional contagion raises concerns By Jenny Choi – ...

infringement

Georgia Supreme Cour

Georgia Supreme Court Takes Chan v. Ellis Appeal to Redefine ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Ken Winterbottom Access to nude photos is a ‘perk’ of ...

pic01

SDNY Holds Bitcoins

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang United States v. Ulbricht, ...