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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Steven Wilfong

Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based on inequitable conduct

ITC’s ruling that uPI violated Consent Order affirmed

Court rules that VeriFone devices did not infringe on payment terminal software patents

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design

French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed

Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement

Read More...

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

Silk Road Founder Loses Argument That the FBI Illegally Hacked Servers to Find Evidence against Him

By Travis West  — Edited by Mengyi Wang

The alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was denied the motion to suppress evidence in his case. Ulbricht argued that the FBI illegally hacked the Silk Road servers to search for evidence to use in search warrants for the server. The judge denied the motion because Ulbricht failed to establish he had any privacy interest in the server.

Read More...

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

Trademark Infringement or First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech?

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys

On October 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, urging  that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”. The brief argues that the use of the names of organizations to comment, critique, and parody, is constitutionally protected by the speaker’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Read More...

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

Twitter goes to court over government restrictions limiting reporting on surveillance requests

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas

Twitter on Oct. 7 sued the government, asking a federal district court to rule that it was allowed to reveal the numbers of surveillance requests it receives in greater detail. Twitter opposes complying with the rules agreed upon by the government and other tech companies in a settlement earlier this year, and argues that the rules violated its rights under the First Amendment.

Read More...

By Olga Slobodyanyuk

Icon-newsMicrosoft changes its policy for accessing user data in investigating leaks

Microsoft announced its new policy in a press release on March 28: “Effective immediately, if we receive information indicating that someone is using our services to traffic in stolen intellectual or physical property from Microsoft, we will not inspect a customer’s private content ourselves. Instead, we will refer the matter to law enforcement if further action is required.” The policy change followed criticism of Microsoft’s 2012 trade secret theft investigation in which Microsoft accessed a user’s private Hotmail email without a warrant.

Microsoft’s initial response to the controversy was to guarantee the privacy safeguards of its own internal investigation. The new change to the company’s privacy policy was in part influenced by the understanding that Microsoft’s internal policy should mirror its position on government investigations. Microsoft advocates “that governments should rely on formal legal processes and the rule of law for surveillance activities.” Ars Technica and the Electronic Frontier Foundation comment on and commend the policy change.

Supreme Court affirms Static Control’s standing in its false advertising suit against Lexmark

A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s holding that Static Control Components, Inc. (“Static Control”) has standing to sue Lexmark International, Inc. (“Lexmark”) for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873 (U.S. March 25, 2014), slip op. hosted by Legal Information Institute.

Lexmark sold toner cartridges with a microchip that prevented re-use of the cartridges by non-Lexmark manufacturers. Lexmark, slip op. at 2. Static Control developed a different microchip which circumvented Lexmark’s chip and allowed re-manufacturers to refill the cartridges. Id. “In 2002, [Lexmark] sued Static Control, alleging that Static Control’s microchips violated both the Copyright Act of 1976 . . . and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” Id. Additionally, Lexmark sent letters to all of Static Control’s customers, stating that Static Control was violating copyright law and that the customers had to return the cartridges. Id. at 3. Static Control responded with counterclaims, which included false advertising allegations under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Id. at 2. Lexmark challenged Static Control’s standing to pursue the false advertising claims. Id. at 4–5. The Supreme Court ruled for Static Control by applying the “zone of interests” test combined with a proximate cause analysis, rejecting Lexmark’s proposed “direct-competitor” test for whether a party has standing to bring a false advertising suit under the Lanham Act. Id. at 10.

SCOTUSblog describes this ruling as “reject[ing] out of hand everything that either the parties or the courts of appeals have said with regard to the topic at hand, and most of what the Court itself previously has said.” Ars Technica commented that this decision is “a somewhat unusual ruling considering that the conservative-leaning court isn’t often inclined to open the door to more lawsuits.”

Consumers receive e-book conspiracy settlement payout while Apple’s litigation continues

On March 25, consumers received Amazon account credits for Kindle e-book purchases made between April 1, 2010 and May 21, 2012. Ars Technica reports that e-book buyers from Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Apple will also receive account credits, and Sony e-book consumers will receive checks. The settlement is the result of a civil antitrust lawsuit alleging that five book publishers and Apple colluded to raise the prices of e-books. The publishers, which include Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins, settled for $166 million, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Apple did not to settle and was found to be “facilitating and executing [a] conspiracy.” United States v. Apple, No. 1:12-cv-2826 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013). According to Ars Technica, Apple is appealing the decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, Apple may face a class-action lawsuit from a group of consumers not included in the original suit, reports Reuters. The consumers allege that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring with publishers to raise e-book prices, and the class seeks more than $800 million in damages. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, In Re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-md-02293 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2012) hosted by Hagens Berman. The plaintiffs’ class was certified on March 28.

Posted On Apr - 1 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Sarah O’Loughlin – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-02430-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014)
Order hosted by InsidePrivacy

Photo By: rovllsCC BY 2.0

Google, Inc. scored a victory last week when a U.S. judge denied class certification to Gmail users attempting to sue the company for violating the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of email users. On March 18, 2014, District Judge Lucy Koh issued an opinion, finding that the issue of consent is too fundamental to the case and too different among the parties seeking class action status together.

The lawsuit alleges that Google’s data-mining practices used in its Gmail electronic-messaging service violate federal and state wiretap and privacy laws. Plaintiffs argue that Google has been improperly intercepting, reading, and mining the content of e-mails for targeted advertising in an attempt to build user profiles. The suit covers several different groups, including people who send e-mails to Gmail users as well as non-Gmail accounts users who pay to use the Google Apps service. Bloomberg and Ars Technica provide further commentary on the allegations, and HuffingtonPost provides further context to the student privacy aspect of the lawsuit. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 27 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Travis West

Icon-newsNSA responds to ABA demand for clarification regarding surveillance of privileged communications

After revelations that intelligence agencies may be spying on privileged communications between lawyers and their clients, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) wrote a letter to the National Security Agency (“NSA”) demanding that the agency clarify its policies regarding the collection of potentially confidential information. The ABA expressed concern that the NSA may be infringing on “the bedrock legal principle” of attorney-client privilege. The NSA responded that it “has afforded, and will continue to afford, appropriate protection to privileged attorney-client communications,” pointing, as an example, to its Section 702 Minimization Procedures for collecting data in a criminal proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 50 U.S.C. § 1881a.

In response, ABA President James Silkenat voiced the organization’s appreciation for “the NSA’s expression of respect for the attorney-client privilege” and indicated that the ABA “looks forward to continuing a constructive dialogue” with the agency. At the same time, as reported by Lawfare Blog, the ABA now offers a course for lawyers on how to prevent spying on their communications – both “abroad and at home.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) expressed disappointment with the NSA’s lack of clarity in its response to the ABA and with the ABA’s quiet acceptance of that response. With respect to government surveillance of privileged communications, the EFF predicts that the “only real dialogue now can be in courtrooms and in Congress.”

United States to turn over control of Domain Name System

In a surprising move, the United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced that it would be turning over control of the root Domain Name System (“DNS”) to international control in 2015. Currently, the DNS is run by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), who received the contract to run the system from the NTIA, a subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The DNS comprises technology that translates a human-readable website name, such as “www.google.com” to a device-readable IP address, like 66.233.160.0. The controller of the DNS possesses great power, since it could remove a domain name and thus make it impossible for people to find the associated website. While the United States has not exercised that power, many countries have feared the possibility.

The United States has planned to relinquish control of the root DNS to the international community since the 1990s, originally hoping for the transition to take place in 2000. The recent announcement comes shortly before the April 2014 ICANN meeting, at which Brazil was expected to propose its own DNS, which would have lead to a fracturing of the Internet. The United States’ relinquishing control of the DNS should scuttle those efforts. However, the United States did not announce what form of governance will now oversee the DNS, raising questions about which companies or international organizations have the technical expertise required to administer the the system.

Turkey bans Twitter with limited success

Within hours of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s promise to “wipe out” Twitter, Turkey’s courts ordered Twitter blocked nationwide. The court order arrived shortly after recordings allegedly showing corruption in Erdogan’s inner circle appeared on social media. The ban – accomplished by a change in the Domain Name Service (“DNS”) hosted by Turkish network providers – initially proved ineffective. Almost 3 million tweets were posted in Turkey in the first 24 hours following the ban, and Twitter itself posted workarounds to the DNS ban. However, the Turkish government has now extended the block to the IP addresses of Twitter in Turkey, which has forced users to install Tor or a VPN client to get around the ban.

Posted On Mar - 26 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jenny Choi – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2013-1057 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2014)
Slip Opinion

Photo By: Kathy McGrawCC BY 2.0

On March 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s decision entering summary judgment in favor of Google, Inc. The district court had held that Google’s “Street View” product did not infringe asserted patents of Vederi, LLC. because its images are a curved representation of the world and thus not elevation views. The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in narrowly interpreting “substantially elevation,” based on extrinsic evidence, to cover only flat images. Vederi, slip op. at 9. After analyzing intrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit held that “substantially elevation” covered both flat and spherical images. Id. at 10. Consequently, the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 14. The Federal Circuit noted that it preferred claim construction based on intrinsic evidence and interpretation that “gives meaning to all the terms of the claim.” Id. at 10.

Bloomberg and Wiley Rein, LLP provide a short summary of the case. PatentlyO also provides an overview of the case and cites Vederi as an example of the Federal Circuit’s continuing denial of any direct patent-related input from Judge Kozniski, who is Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and who sat by designation in deciding on summary judgment in Vederi at the district court. The Wake Forest Journal of Business & Intellectual Property Law provides background on the case’s initial filing in 2010. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 25 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Zoe Bedell – Edited by Gea Kang

Photo By: satanoidCC BY 2.0

On March 13, 2014, the San Antonio City Council pre-approved a long-term lease that would allow Google to begin construction to bring Google Fiber to the city. While Google has not yet chosen San Antonio as a destination for its fiber network, the city’s leaders hope that the lease will encourage Google to do so. Wired discusses the city’s move.

Google’s high-speed Internet service is currently available in Kansas City, Missouri, and Provo, Utah. Google has also announced plans to expand to Austin, Texas, and will be considering thirty-four additional cities in nine different metropolitan areas for further expansion. The company has established selection criteria that will speed up the review process and ensure that construction can proceed quickly. For instance, Google asks interested cities to provide details on existing infrastructure and to review local permitting processes. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 25 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...