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

Newegg Wins Patent Troll Case After Court Delays

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis West

The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently issued a final judgement for online retailer Newegg, twenty months after trial, vacating a $2.3 million jury award for TQP. TQP, a patent assertion entity commonly known as a “patent troll,” collected $45 million in settlements for the patent in question before Newegg’s trial.

Read More...

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

The Evolution of Internet Service Providers from Partners to Adversaries: Tracking Shifts in Interconnection Goals and Strategies in the Internet’s Fifth Generation

By Robert Frieden – Edited by Marcela Viviana Ruiz Martinez, Olga Slobodyanyuk and Yaping Zhang

In respone to increasing attempts by Internet Service Providers to target customers who trigger higher costs for rate increases, the FCC and other regulatory agencies worldwide have stepped in to prevent market failure and anticompetitive practices. This paper will examine new models for the carriage of Internet traffic that have arisen in the wake of these changes.

Read More...

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

The Global Corporate Citizen:  Responding to International Law Enforcement Requests for Online User Data 

By Kate Westmoreland – Edited by Yunnan Jiang

This paper analyses the law controlling when U.S.-based providers can provide online user data to foreign governments. The focus is on U.S. law because U.S. dominance of internet providers means that U.S. laws affect a large number of global users. The first half of this paper outlines the legal framework governing these requests. The second half highlights the gaps in the law and how individual companies’ policies fill these gaps.

Read More...

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

3D Printing, Net Neutrality, and the Internet: Symposium Introduction

By Deborah Beth Medows – Edited by Yaping Zhang

Jurists must widely examine the pervasive challenges among the advents in Internet and computer technology in order to ensure that legal systems protect individuals while  encouraging innovation.  It is precisely due to the legal and societal quagmires that 3D printing and net neutrality pose that ideally position them as springboards from which to delve into broader discussions on technology law.

Read More...

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

A Victory for Compatibility: the Ninth Circuit Gives Teeth to RAND Terms

By Stacy Ruegilin – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Microsoft won a victory in the Ninth Circuit last Thursday after the court found that Motorola, a former Google subsidiary, had breached its obligation to offer licenses for standards-essential technologies at reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. The court affirmed a $14.52 million jury verdict against Motorola for the breach.

Read More...

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 Add Comments 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 Add Comments 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 Add Comments 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 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Neiman MarcusBy Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss

Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, No. 14-3122, 2015 WL 4394814 (7th Cir. July 20, 2015)

The Seventh Circuit reversed the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which had held that Neiman Marcus cardholders who fell victim to a data breach, but had either been compensated by their credit card companies for any fraudulent activities or had not suffered fraudulent activities on their accounts at all, did not have standing to bring a putative class action against the retailer.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the cardholders did have standing: the allegation of impending future harm and the concrete injury they had suffered in taking steps to mitigate or prevent that harm is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. In so holding, the court rejected the district court’s “overreading” of Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, which has buttressed many 12(b)(1) dismissals in data breach class action suits. In Clapper, the Supreme Court found that a group of human rights organizations could not assert standing based on suspicions that the government had intercepted their communications with terrorists. The Seventh Circuit urged the lower courts to recognize an important distinction between mere suspicion of injury and a “substantial risk” of injury. Substantial risk of injury, the court held, was not “jettison[ed]” by the Supreme Court, since a substantial risk “may prompt plaintiffs to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid that harm.” The court accordingly held that in the case of a data breach, where “the purpose . . . is, sooner or later, to make fraudulent charges or assume those consumers’ identities,” plaintiffs may properly assert Article III standing based on a substantial risk of injury.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 27 - 2015 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Newegg

Newegg Wins Patent T

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis ...

Photo By: Brian Hawkins - CC BY 2.0

The Evolution of Int

[caption id="attachment_4164" align="alignleft" width="300"] Photo By: Brian Hawkins - CC ...

images

The Global Corporate

By Kate Westmoreland Edited by Yunnan Jiang 1.     Introduction Accessing online records and ...

technology-512210_1280

3D Printing, Net Neu

By Deborah Beth Medows, Symposium Editor When this author first conceived ...

Microsoft Mobile

A Victory for Compat

By Stacy Ruegilin – Edited by Ken Winterbottom Microsoft Corp. v. ...