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

European Court of Justice Invalidates Data Retention Directive
By Paul Klein – Edited by Alex Shank

In a preliminary ruling requested by courts in Ireland and Austria, the European Court of Justice found that Directive 2006/24/EC was invalid. The Grand Chamber recognized the legitimacy of retaining telecommunications data as a means to combat serious crime and terrorism, but it ultimately held that the far-reaching scope of the Directive disproportionately affected individual privacy under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Read More...

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

Google to Supreme Court: Snagging Data from Unsecured Wi-Fi is Perfectly Legal
By Michael Shammas – Edited by Mary Schnoor

Google has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to label its Street View cars’ collection of unencrypted Wi-Fi traffic legal, appealing the Ninth Circuit’s decision that Google may have violated the federal Wiretap Act. Google believes unencrypted Wi-Fi traffic should be classed as “radio communications” accessible to the public.

Read More...

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

Mozilla Announces Resignation of Recently Appointed CEO Brendan Eich Following Controversy over Gay Marriage Opposition
By Sheri Pan – Edited by Corey Omer

On April 3, Mozilla Corporation (“Mozilla”), a subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation most widely known for producing the Firefox browser, announced that its CEO of less than two weeks, Brendan Eich, has resigned, after pressure from Mozilla employees, bloggers, and developers who opposed his appointment in light of a $1000 donation that he made in 2008 in support of Proposition 8, a ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage in California.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News In Brief
By Emma Winer

Third Circuit Vacates Hacker Conviction for Improper Venue

French Unions and Employers Agree to Curb After-Hours Work Email

Limited Sale of Google Glass Slated For April 15

Read More...

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

Supreme Court Weighs Patent Eligibility of Software
By Mary Schnoor — Edited by Elise Young

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, a case with the potential to determine whether, or when, computer-implemented inventions (i.e., software) are patent-eligible subject matter. Many commentators hope the Court will use this case as an opportunity to clarify what makes an invention an “abstract idea” that is ineligible for patenting.

Read More...

Unites States v. Magana
By Casey Holzapfel – Edited by Geng Chen

United States v. Magana, No. 12-CR-154 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2012)
Order

United States v. Mendoza, No. 12-CR-154 (WCG/WEC) (E.D. Wis. Oct. 9, 2012)
Recommendation

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that Wisconsin law enforcement officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they installed hidden surveillance cameras on private property without a warrant. Judge William Griesbach accepted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Callahan to deny the defendants’ requests to suppress evidence obtained through the use of hidden cameras. Magana, slip op. at 1.

The court held that the installation of surveillance equipment did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was placed outside the “curtilage”—the land surrounding the house where private activities are expected to take place. Mendoza, slip op. at 3–4.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 8 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions
By Jessica Vosgerchian – Edited by Dorothy Du

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

On October 25, the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress announced new recommendations for exemptions to Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) effective October 28. Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological controls found in electronic devices that control access to copyrighted works. Section 1201(a)(1)(B), however, allows the Register to grant exemptions to be reviewed every three years. In this year’s review, the Register upheld the legality of jailbreaking smartphones and decrypting DVD and e-book controls for the visually- and hearing-impaired. The Register also broadened exemptions for fair use of video excerpts. However, the new rules prohibit “unlocking” smartphones purchased after January 2013, forbid jailbreaking tablets and game consoles, and prohibit “space shifting.”

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 7 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc.
By Suzanne Van Arsdale – Edited by Sounghun Lee

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:12-Cr-137 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2012)
Indictment hosted by legaltimes.typepad.com

The Department of Justice brought a criminal indictment against South Korea-based Kolon Industries Inc. (“Kolon”) and five of its executives in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count of conspiracy to convert trade secrets, four counts of theft of trade secrets, and one count of obstruction of justice.

According to the indictment, filed on August 21, 2012, Kolon and its executives engaged in years of corporate espionage. The government accused Kolon of paying former and current employees of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”) and Teijin Ltd. and its subsidiaries (“Teijin”) to reveal confidential and proprietary information related to the manufacture of synthetic fiber, in violation of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (the “Act”). Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–294, 110 Stat. 3488 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839 (2006)).

The Wall Street Journal and Reuters provide an overview of the indictment. Bloomberg Businessweek noted that Kolon’s alleged theft of trade secrets has already resulted in a jury verdict awarding DuPont nearly $920 million and a prison sentence for a former DuPont employee who pled guilty to theft of trade secrets.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
By Dorothy Du – Edited by Daniella Adler

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., No. CV 10-3633 ODW (RZx), (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012)
Slip opinion

The District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the heirs of Joseph Shuster, the first illustrator of Superman, signed away their right to reclaim Superman copyrights in an agreement with DC Comics (“DC”). The court granted plaintiff DC’s motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that a 1992 agreement between the Shusters and DC barred the Shusters from terminating copyright grants to DC. DC Comics, slip. op. at 7. The court also found that section 304(d) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides former copyright owners a termination right, did not apply. Id. at 5.

Ars Technica explains copyright termination doctrine and points out that Pacific Pictures Corporation is a joint venture owned by the defendants and their attorney in the case, Toberoff. The Los Angeles Times highlights the importance of the victory to Warner Bros., DC’s parent company. If DC had lost the case, the studio, which is releasing the movie Man of Steel next June, would have been unable to continue using certain elements of the Superman mythos.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 24 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
By David LeRay – Edited by Michael Hoven

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California, which had granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone. The case was decided by Judges Prost, Moore, and Reyna, who acted unanimously.

The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Apple established it was at risk of irreparable harm, one of the necessary factors under the eBay test elaborated by the Supreme Court to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction. See Apple, No. 2012-1507, slip op. at 5 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). Specifically, Apple did not prove that a “sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Id. at 6.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case and argues that the decision elevates the preliminary injunction standard and thus makes it more difficult for patentees to obtain injunctive relief. Reuters states that the case is an implicit endorsement of Judge Richard Posner’s skepticism regarding remedies in the context of smartphone feature patents and that the case is a “palpable blow” to Apple’s smartphone legal strategy.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 22 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY 2.0

European Court of Ju

By Paul Klein – Edited by Alex Shank [caption id="attachment_4363" align="alignleft" ...

Photo By: Kyle Nishioka - CC BY 2.0

Google to Supreme Co

By Michael Shammas – Edited by Mary Schnoor [caption id="attachment_4353" align="alignleft" ...

Photo By: Mozilla in Europe - CC BY 2.0

Mozilla Announces Re

By Sheri Pan – Edited by Corey Omer [caption id="attachment_4341" align="alignleft" ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News I

By Emma Winer Third Circuit Vacates Hacker Conviction for Improper Venue The ...

Photo By: Yuri Samoilov - CC BY 2.0

Supreme Court Weighs

By Mary Schnoor — Edited by Elise Young [caption id="attachment_4322" align="alignleft" ...