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

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...

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

How Far Can Law Enforcement Go When Gathering Email Evidence? Former Gov. Scott Walker Employee Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss

Kelly Rindfleisch is serving a six-month sentence for misconduct in public office while working for then-County Executive Scott Walker. Rindfleisch appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the government violated her Fourth Amendment rights while searching her emails for evidence for a different case.

Read More...

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

Russia’s “Right To Be Forgotten” and China’s Right To Be Protected: New Privacy and Security Legislation

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

The legislatures in Russia and China took steps this month to tighten regulations over Internet companies with access to user data. In Russia, President Vladmir Putin signed a law ensuring a “right to be forgotten” reminiscent of the European Court of Justice’s right to be forgotten ruling of May 2014. And in China, the National People’s Congress released a draft cybersecurity bill that would formalize and strengthen the State’s long-standing regulation of websites and network operators.

Read More...

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

Washington Appeals Court Refuses to Compel Unmasking of Anonymous Avvo Critic Absent Evidence of Defamation

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

The Washington Court of Appeals held that—absent evidence of defamation—a third party website is not required to unmask an anonymous defendant. The court adopted an analysis similar to the widely cited Dendrite test for the showing a defamation plaintiff must make on a motion to compel disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity.

Read More...

Settlement between Zynga and Electronic Arts
By Casey Holzapfel – Edited by Andrew Crocker

Hacked By Over-XThe Chicago Tribune reports that Electronic Arts (EA) and Zynga have reached a settlement agreement regarding competing lawsuits in the Northern District of California. While the details of the settlement were not made public, both parties agreed to drop their respective lawsuits and pay their own legal fees. According to red Orbit, the settlement does not involve compensation from either company.

EA initially filed a complaint against Zynga in August 2012, alleging that Zynga’s game “The Ville” copied EA’s game “The Sims Social” after hiring EA executives who had worked on “The Sims Social.” Six weeks later, Zynga filed its own lawsuit claiming EA had violated a 2011 agreement between the two companies regarding employee solicitation. Zynga accused EA of violating the agreement by attempting to block employees from switching companies. Two of the executives mentioned in EA’s suit for moving to Zynga have left Zynga in the past year.

The Chicago Tribune provides an overview of the events leading to the settlement. The San Francisco Chronicle looks into the details of copyright protection for video games. (more…)

Posted On Feb - 27 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

In re Innovatio IP Ventures
By David LeRay – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Case No. 11 C 9308 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2013)
Slip opinion

The Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part Innovatio IP Ventures’s motion to dismiss seven claims in a complaint brought by manufacturers of wireless Internet technology. The court dismissed the manufacturers’ claims based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, the California Business & Professional Code, a theory of civil conspiracy, a theory of interference with prospective economic advantage, and a theory of unclean hands. The court did not dismiss claims based on breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

The court held that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting petitioners of the government from liability extends to patent law cases in the Seventh Circuit, and specifically applies to pre-suit demand letters under Federal Circuit law unless the defendant is engaging in sham litigation. The court reasoned that the doctrine is “today understood [in the Seventh Circuit] as an application of the first amendment . . . ,” and applies readily beyond its origins in antitrust and labor cases. Innovatio at 9. The court held that the doctrine protected pre-suit communications under the logic of the Federal Circuit’s holding in Globetrotter Software. Id. at 13 (discussing Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc., 362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Ars Technica provides an overview of the case. Wall Street Journal Law Blog and The Patent Examiner discuss its history. (more…)

Posted On Feb - 26 - 2013 1 Comment READ FULL POST

By Dorothy Du

Song Wins Contest to Circumvent “Happy Birthday to You” Copyright

For those unaware, the song “Happy Birthday to You” remains under copyright until 2030. The copyright, as Bloomberg Law and Gizmodo report, has been owned by Time Warner since 1998, and the corporation has made more than $2 million per year from licensing the song. Professor Robert Brauneis of George Washington University Law School says the copyright over the song is weak, as Slate explains, “due to lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and failure to file a proper renewal.” WFMU, an independent radio station in New Jersey, through its podsafe online music library Free Music Archive, decided to do something about it. Rather than challenge the copyright through a lawsuit, WFMU held a contest to replace the song with “a melody that children can sing without fear of being served.” The winner, “It’s Your Birthday!” by Monk Turner and Fascinoma, was selected by such judges as Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and Yo La Tengo’s Ira Kaplan. Not everyone, including Above The Law, is confident the song will accomplish its goal of replacing the original, however.

Privacy Concerns to Temper Excitement over Google Glass

Since April 2012, tech aficionados have been eagerly awaiting the latest news about Project Glass, Google’s project to create an “augmented reality” system. Google Glass comprises glasses-like headgear on which audio and visual information can be transmitted to and from a wearer, as Wired explains. A Google patent filed in April 2011 reveals that different embodiments of the device can utilize display lens or even a laser to display images directly on the user’s retina. According to First Post, Google Glass is supposed to perform much of the same functions as a smartphone, but without the hassle of a handheld device. Google has just opened up the project, giving U.S.-based developers until February 27 to apply to be a “Glass Explorer,” explains iProgrammer. However, with Google Glass comes some serious legal issues that have not yet received much attention. If it proliferates, Google Glass could run amok of distracted driver laws and creates privacy concerns over hidden cameras in places from locker rooms to board meetings, says Investors.com. CounterPunch has also expressed concern that the government and corporations may abuse the technology to get ahold of a “veritable gold mine of information.”

3-D Printing Gets Shout-Out in State of Union, but Copyright Concerns Growing

3-D printing is still in its infancy, but it is no longer merely an innovator’s dream. President Obama mentioned 3-D printing in the State of the Union less than two weeks ago as a potential way to bring manufacturing back to the United States. As NPR explains, however, the emerging technology may be significantly hindered by intellectual property disputes. A Note by Davis Doherty, a Harvard Journal of Law and Technology alumnus, has highlighted the potential for 3-D printing to run afoul of patent law by making it easy for the public to replicate designs that may infringe an existing patent on an unprecedented scale. NPR’s story focuses on copyright, stating that the problem arises from the fact that people are sharing their designs on websites like Makerbot’s Thingiverse, designs that are frequently protected by copyright. Moulinsart, the owner of the “Tintin” franchise, recently served Thingiverse with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice, with which it complied. This follows Thingiverse’s first takedown notice back in 2011, reported on by Ars Technica, which prompted Thingiverse to add copyright language to its Terms of Use.

 

Posted On Feb - 25 - 2013 1 Comment READ FULL POST

Executive Order on Cybersecurity
By Jessica Vosgerchian — Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Executive Order 13636—Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 Fed. Reg. 11739 (February 19, 2013)
Order; Press Release

Photo By: Mark SkrobolaCC BY 2.0

On February 12, President Obama signed an Executive Order to increase information sharing between government agencies and private companies regarding cybersecurity threats to critical infrastructure.

The order, titled “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,” mandates the delivery of classified reports to infrastructure companies that are likely targets of cyber attacks. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence will develop a process for tracking the dissemination of the reports. Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, sec. 4(b), 78 Fed. Reg. at 11739.

The New York Times provides an overview of the order and reactions to it. The Huffington Post notes that the order safeguards personal privacy, a feature that the ACLU applauds and contrasts favorably with CISPA, the cybersecurity legislation reintroduced in the House of Representatives. (more…)

Posted On Feb - 22 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata
By Erica Larson – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata, No. 2012-1245 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2013)
Slip opinion

Photo By: Derek GaveyCC BY 2.0

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Northern District of California, which ruled that plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. (“SEL”) could not establish federal jurisdiction over defendant Dr. Yujiro Nagata. The courts rejected a novel offensive application of assignor estoppel, traditionally a defense, which bars the previous holder of a patent from attacking the patent’s validity when sued for infringement by the assignee.

SEL asserted the doctrine offensively, arguing that Nagata had violated assignor estoppel in a previous lawsuit by testifying against SEL, giving rise to a federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Like the district court before it, the Federal Circuit did not reward plaintiff’s legal creativity. Instead the court held that the argument lacked precedent or strong supporting authority and declined to extend the doctrine. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory at 6–7.

Property, intangible provides an overview of the decision and prior events. Dennis Crouch, writing for Patently-O, speculates that the Federal Circuit would have affirmed without opinion were the Supreme Court not presently considering Gunn v. Minton, a case which questions the extent of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b). Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011) cert. granted, 133 S.Ct. 420 (2012) (focusing on whether the state law attorney malpractice case raises a federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b)). (more…)

Posted On Feb - 19 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
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 ...

Magnifying Glass

How Far Can Law Enfo

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss State v. Rindfleisch, ...

Russia & China Cropped

Russia’s “Right

By Brittany Doyle - Edited by Ken Winterbottom The legislatures in ...

Avvo Logo Cropped

Washington Appeals C

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk Thomson v. Doe, ...