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 Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso

IMDb is challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1687 (“AB 1687”), a California law requiring IMDb to remove ages from its website upon request from paid subscribers, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Read More...

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

Facebook Blocks British Insurance Company from Basing Premiums on Posts and Likes

By Javier Careaga– Edited by Mila Owen

Admiral Insurance has created an initiative called firstcarquote, which analyzes Facebook activity of first-time car owners. The firstcarquote algorithm determines risk based on personality traits and habits that are linked to safe driving. Firstcarquote was recalled two hours before its official launch and then was launched with reduced functionality after Facebook denied authorization, stating that the initiative breaches Facebook’s platform policy.

Read More...

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

Airbnb challenges New York law regulating short-term rentals

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari

Airbnb filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking to “enjoin and declare unlawful the enforcement against Airbnb” of the recent law that prohibits  the advertising of short-term rentals on Airbnb and other similar websites.  Airbnb argued that the new law violated its rights to free speech and due process, and that it was inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from a range of liabilities.

Read More...

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

Medtronic v. Bosch post-Cuozzo: PTAB continues to have the final say on inter partes review

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) reaffirmed its earlier order, dismissing Medtronic’s appeal against a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB had dismissed Medtronic’s petition for inter partes review of Bosch’s patents, since Medtronic had failed to disclose all real parties in interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2).

 

Read More...

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

California DMV Discuss Rules on Autonomous Vehicles

DOJ Release Guidelines on CFAA Prosecutions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule in Favor of State Provisions Requiring Disclosure of Online Identities of Sex Offenders

Research Shows Concerns for Crucial Infrastructure Information Leaks

Read More...

Microsoft MobileBy Stacy Ruegilin – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 14-35393, 2015 WL 4568613 (9th Cir. July 30, 2015).

Last week, the Ninth Circuit handed Microsoft a victory against Motorola in a case that tempers hardball tactics to enforce patents on “standards-essential” technologies. A panel of three judges in San Francisco upheld a District Court’s ruling that technology standardization places a patent-holder under contractual obligation to offer licenses at reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) rates, which may be determined by a court if necessary.

Standards allow consumers to use certain technologies across multiple devices, even if they are produced by different manufacturers. For example, when a consumer purchases a computer from Microsoft, they know that it will be able to read file formats patented by other technology companies, such as PDF, JPEG, Flash, and Bluetooth. These formats are standards that have been accepted and propagated by standards-setting organizations (SSOs).

The theory is that everyone benefits from this arrangement: it adds value to the products of technology companies and offers compatible devices to consumers. Registering with an SSO is a step toward market ubiquity, but by doing so, the patent holder is usually required to offer licenses on RAND terms. This encourages competition by preventing the holder of a standards-essential patent from demanding exorbitant royalties for standards that reach market dominance.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 7 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Google FranceBy Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Henry Thomas

CNIL Order (France’s National Commission of Information and Liberties, June, 12 2015)

Google v. AEPD, Case C‑131/12, (Court of Justice of the European Union, May, 13 2014) (opinion hosted by CURIA)

Google has taken an affirmative step against expanding the right to be forgotten in a move that has been called a step against online censorship.

In a clash that pits users’ privacy rights against the West’s disdain for censorship, Google has decided that limiting internet censorship is more important, refusing to comply with a French regulator’s order to expand the right to be forgotten.  On May 13, 2014, Europe’s top court ruled that Google had to honor the EU’s right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten—also known as the right to delist—allows users to remove “irrelevant” or “inadequate” search results associated with their identities. While Google has been removing qualifying links from the European versions of its search engine (such as Google.fr), it refuses to remove those links from its international domains (such as Google.com, ranked by Alexa.com as the world’s most popular website).

In June 2015, the Commission Nationale de L’informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)—the French administrative body that regulates data privacy—ordered Google to begin removing qualifying links from all of Google’s domains worldwide. Google refused in an official blog post by its Global Privacy Counsel, Peter Fleischer. Fleischer called the CNIL order “a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web,” and argues that, while the right to be forgotten is the law in Europe, it is not the law worldwide. Thus Google refuses to remove qualifying links from non-European domains, which it argues are not governed by Europe’s delisting laws.

The New York Times provides an overview of the clash between Google and French privacy regulators. Fortune offers additional commentary, calling Google’s move a “bold challenge to France” and a “dramatic gesture to oppose censorship of its search results.”

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 4 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Facebook InternationalBy Annie Woodworth – Edited by Ariane Moss

The Hamburg Data Protection Authority, a German regulatory body tasked with protecting data and privacy, said last Tuesday that Facebook is violating the privacy rights of its users by banning pseudonyms. The group ordered Facebook to allow users to choose fake names and has forbidden the company from changing usernames or asking users for their IDs. Facebook has issued an apology to affected users and will allow the use of preferred names.

The order came after a woman complained to the agency when Facebook blocked her account that used a fake name. Facebook then requested a copy of her ID and unilaterally changed her profile to display her real name. The woman purportedly used the pseudonym to avoid receiving business related contact through the site. Other business owners are worried about setting up business pages that must be associated with their real names.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 4 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Nintendo 3DSBy Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

On July 17, 2015, the Court for the Northern District of California issued an opinion granting summary judgment in favor of Nintendo in a patent infringement suit, construing the disputed claim term in accordance with Nintendo’s interpretation and finding non-infringement based on the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

The patent at issue is No. 7,425,944 (‘944 Patent), entitled “Computerized Information Retrieval System”, which was assigned to plaintiff Quintal Research Group from its inventor. The patent related to handheld computing devices, and particularly to “a portable handheld communication device for rapid retrieval of computerized information.” The patent described a handheld device with a display screen and ergonomically placed finger controls, including thumb controls “symmetrically arranged” on either side of the display screen. Renderings of the patent show two buttons, identical in size and shape, along the outer casing of a handheld device. Nintendo’s handheld devices also have ergonomically placed finger controls that are evenly placed on either side of a display screen, though one set of controls is a cross-shaped joystick, and the other is a cluster of circular buttons. The case thus boiled down to a dispute about the meaning of “symmetrically arranged”.

Quintal Research Group argued that “symmetrically arranged” referred merely to the placement or location of controls on the device, while Nintendo contended that “symmetrically arranged” means that the controls are mirror images of one another, having the same size and shape. Judge Armstrong agreed with Nintendo based on the specifications of the ‘944 Patent, and further held that extrinsic evidence supported Nintendo’s interpretation.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

TelevisionBy Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas

Order: Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X, LLC, No. CV-12-6921 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) hosted by loeb.com

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled last week granted summary judgement for defendant FilmOn X, finding that the internet-based television provider is entitled to a compulsory license under § 111 of the Copyright Act to re-transmit broadcast television. The ruling is at odds with both a Second Circuit ruling and the position of the Copyright Office. Recognizing that the legal issues were close and of “significant commercial importance”, the judge authorized an immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit and chose to maintain the existing preliminary injunction against FilmOn X.

FilmOn X gives subscribers access to remote antennae which pick up TV signals and broadcast the programs online where users can view in DVR format.  Though the service is currently free, FilmOn maintains that this is because the service is offering free trials.  Plaintiffs Fox Television Stations, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, and a host of other broadcasting companies moved for summary judgement, arguing that FilmOn X was not entitled to a compulsory license under § 111 of the Copyright Act. FilmOn X cross-moved that they were entitled to the license. § 111 allows cable broadcast companies to transmit copyrighted media, without negotiating with every copyright holder, as long as they follow specified rules and pay set royalties.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 27 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
California Flag

IMDb Challenges Cali

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso IMDb.com, Inc. v. ...

Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...

computer-typing1

Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...

Unknown

Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...