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

Google Refuses to Expand the Right to be Forgotten

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Henry Thomas

Last Thursday, Google announced its refusal to comply with a June 2015 right-t0-be-forgotten order issued by a French regulatory agency. The tech giant called the order, which demanded that it remove qualifying links from all Google search results, not just those on its European domains,  “a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web.”

Read More...

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

German Commission Orders Facebook to Allow Fake Names

By Annie Woodworth – Edited by Ariane Moss

Last Tuesday, the Hamburg Data Protection Authority, a German regulatory body, ordered Facebook to lift its policy prohibiting users from choosing pseudonyms. Although there was some dispute over whether the order applied to Facebook, the social media giant agreed to change the policy and issued an apology.

Read More...

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

Nintendo Wins Summary Judgment Based on Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

On July 17, 2015, the Northern District Court of California granted a summary judgment motion in Nintendo’s favor in a patent suit, construing disputed term in accordance with Nintendo’s interpretation and finding that the patent had not been infringed. The court based its decision on prosecution history estoppel, highlighting differences between the processes of obtaining and enforcing a patent.

Read More...

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

District Court Holds that Internet-Based Television Provider, FilmOn X is Entitled to a Compulsory License

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas

The U.S. District court for the Central District of California ruled that an online streaming service that rebroadcasted network television fit the definition of a cable company, and was entitled to compulsory licensing under § 111 of the Copyright Act.  The order relied on the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision, which held that internet streaming was fundamentally the same as cable. The ruling conflicts with a Second Circuit case decided on similar facts, and is immediately appealable.

Read More...

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

Data Breach Victims, Rejoice: Seventh Circuit Finds that Threat of Injury is Sufficient for Article III Standing in Data Breach Class Actions

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss

Last Monday, the Seventh Circuit Courto of Appeals ruled that victims of a data breach had standing to pursue a class action even when they had not suffered direct financial harm as a result of the breach or when they had already been compensated for financial harm resulting from the breach. The opinion reversed a contrary district court decision, which the Seventh Circuit said had incorrectly read the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

Read More...

Photo By: Nancy PelosiCC BY 2.0

Written By: Natalie Kim
Edited By: Alex Shank

Introduction

Amidst heated debate and unprecedented lobbying in Brussels, European Union lawmakers are currently drafting a General Data Protection Regulation (“DPR”) to replace the outdated 1995 Data Protection Directive. The 1995 Directive has been criticized for being technologically outdated and cumbersome to follow. If enacted, the DPR will be among the toughest data protection laws in existence. Regardless of enaction, the DPR signifies a growing rift between EU and U.S. data protection ideals. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 11 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written by: Suzanne Van Arsdale
Edited by: Michelle Sohn

Introduction

On May 21, 2013, Twitter launched version 1.0 of the Innovator’s Patent Agreement (“IPA”), which formalizes a company’s commitment to non-offensive patenting and leaves some control in the hands of inventors.

This Comment addresses the incentives for and legal implications of adopting the IPA. Part I broadly discusses the content of the IPA and its adoption. Part II reviews the software industry’s concerns and current practices. Part III examines the practical effect of adopting the IPA, its scope, and its binding and defensive nature. Part IV reviews other defensive patenting mechanisms and compares them to the IPA. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 11 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jonathan Sapp – Edited by Alex Shank

Photo By: Glen Edelson - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: Glen EdelsonCC BY 2.0

In June, a British high court ruled in favor of Volkswagen by enjoining Flavio Garcia from publishing an academic paper that sought to expose weaknesses in Volkswagen’s automobile security systems. In the paper, Garcia revealed secret codes used to activate the ignition systems of several luxury vehicles including those by Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini, and Porsche. The British court’s ruling is the latest in the battle against researchers who expose security systems’ flaws through hacking.

The Guardian provides a thorough analysis of the case. Ars Technica cautions against the “Internet of automobiles” and discusses the latest trend in car hacking: brake and speed tampering. Extreme Tech offers insight into security system hacking and suggests that boats and planes are not immune. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 10 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co., No. 12-1578 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2013)
Slip Opinion

20130807 Charles Machine Works v. VermeerOn July 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and reversed-in-part a lower court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as to Vermeer Manufacturing Company’s (“Vermeer”) commercial products and non-commercial prototypes.

In a unanimous opinion, the Federal Circuit held that The Charles Machine Works (“CMW”) lacked notice that the non-commercial prototypes were within the scope of summary judgment and therefore vacated the relevant part of the lower court’s decision. For the commercial products, the court affirmed the finding of no literal infringement but reversed the grant of summary judgment regarding non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. It reasoned that the lower court had improperly discounted CMW’s expert testimony that established genuine factual disputes about equivalence.

Patently-O summarizes the history of the litigation and briefly explains the court’s ruling. Finnegan and McKenna Long & Aldridge feature analyses of prior Federal Circuit jurisprudence regarding the doctrine of claim vitiation. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 8 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network
By Simon Heimowitz – Edited by Samantha Rothberg

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, No. 12-57048 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013)
Slip Opinion, hosted by eff.org

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision to deny Fox Broadcasting Company’s (“Fox”) request for a preliminary injunction against Dish Network’s (“Dish”) “AutoHop,” a product associated with Dish’s “Hopper.” The Hopper allows subscribers to automatically record Fox’s primetime television shows and then view them with the commercials fast-forwarded, without manual user involvement.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Fox “did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its copyright infringement and breach of contract claims regarding Dish’s implementation of [two television recording products].” Fox Broadcasting Co. v.  Dish Network, No. 12-57048, slip op. at 10 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013). The court determined that Dish Network was not responsible for directly infringing Fox’s copyright because the consumer initiates the copying process, not Dish Network. Id. at 12. The court also ruled that Dish would not be held liable for secondary infringement because although Fox carried its burden of proving direct infringement by consumers, Dish successfully raised an “affirmative defense that its customers’ copying was a ‘fair use.’” Id. at 13 (citation omitted). The court affirmed that Fox was unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claims against Dish, noting that the commercial-skipping function of the Hopper product “does not implicate Fox’s copyright interest because Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks.” Id. at 14–15. The Ninth Circuit considered a number of related precedents in determining that the Hopper’s noncommercial time-shifting function was non-infringing fair use. See id. at 13–15.

The New York Times and Reuters provide an overview of the case. Ars Technica features an analysis of the decision and provides detailed context regarding the rancorous history between Dish and major TV networks over the Hopper. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 6 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Google France

Google Refuses to Ex

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Henry Thomas CNIL Order (France’s ...

Facebook International

German Commission Or

By Annie Woodworth – Edited by Ariane Moss The Hamburg Data ...

Nintendo 3DS

Nintendo Wins Summar

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin On July 17, ...

Television

District Court Holds

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas Order: Fox Television ...

Neiman Marcus

Data Breach Victims,

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss Remijas v. Neiman ...