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 Jaehwan Park – Edited by Kayla Haran

Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Bill Encouraging U.S. Government Agencies to Use the Cloud as a Secure Alternative to Legacy Systems

Snapchat Accused of Violating Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Announces New Policy Group to Promote Global Digital Trade

Read More...

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

Second Circuit Prohibits Extraterritorial Application of Stored Communication Act’s Warrant Provision

The Second Circuit reversed a U.S. Magistrate Judge’s warrant ordering Microsoft to produce customer content stored in Ireland. The Second Circuit held that the warrant provisions in § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC §§2701-2712 (1986) (“SCA”), cannot be used to compel a service provider to disclose user e-mail content stored exclusively on a foreign server.

Read More...

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

U.S. District Court Denied TC Heartland’s Writ of Mandamus to Transfer Patent Infringement Suit

 

In April 2016, the Federal Circuit denied TC Heartland LLC’s writ of mandamus. Hartland requested the court order the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement suit initiated by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. In rejecting Hartland’s request, the court explained that a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy appropriate only in exceptional circumstances” and Hartland did not meet this bar.

Read More...

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

Congresswoman Speier’s Revenge Pornography Bill: Crossing the First Amendment Line?

On July 14, 2016, Congresswoman Speier proposed the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, a bill designed to make revenge pornography a federal crime punishable with up to five years in prison. Although the current version is narrower in scope than previous iterations, there are still some concerns that this bill violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Read More...

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

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016.

Read More...

Third Circuit Subjects Reverse Payments to Strict Antitrust Scrutiny

By Jie Zhang – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012)

Slip opinion

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which had rejected an antitrust challenge to a reverse payment agreement between the K-Dur patent holder Schering-Plough Corporation (“Schering”) and the generic drug manufacturer Upsher-Smith Laboratories (“Upsher”) to delay Upsher’s market entry.

The Third Circuit held that the rule of reason analysis should be applied in antitrust claims involving reverse payments and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  The rule of reason analysis requires the court to treat reverse payments as prima facie evidence of unreasonable restraint of trade, with the possibility of rebuttal by showing that the payment was not for delayed market entry or had pro-competitive effects.  In so holding, the Third Circuit emphasized Congress’ intent in passing the Hatch-Waxman Act — to provide incentive for competition in the pharmaceutical industry and increase availability of generic drugs.

Bloomberg Businessweek provides an overview of the case.  The Washington Post provides additional background information and reports on the reaction of the FTC and pharmaceutical companies.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 7 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Susanna Lichter

FTC Proposes Stricter Rules for Web Sites Visited by Children

The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed new regulations that would require third party advertising applications to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the New York Times reports. COPPA, which took effect in 2000, currently requires web site operators, but not website add-ons, to notify parents and obtain consent when personal information is collected from children under 13 years of age. In addition to extending COPPA to third parties, the proposed rule would change the present requirement that websites attracting both children and adults treat all visitors as children, allowing a web site to screen users by asking their age and applying COPPA privacy protections only to those who say they are under 13. Websites whose content is anticipated to attract primarily children would still be required to treat all users as children, however.

Appeals Court Says Embedding is Not Infringement in Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter

On Thursday the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that myVidster, a site that allows users to “bookmark” web videos by embedding them on its site surrounded by ads, was not liable to pornography producer Flava Works for copyright infringement when myVidster users embedded copies of Flava videos on myVidster. Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, No. 11-3190 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012). Judge Richard Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, reasoned that because simply viewing an infringing copy of a video isn’t copyright infringement, and the underlying data is actually being streamed directly from third-party servers to user computers, myVidster was not guilty of direct copyright infringement. Posner also found that myVidster was not liable for secondary copyright infringement, comparing myVidster’s level of inducement of its user’s actions to a bookstore from which a thief steals a copyrighted book and reads it: a “bad thing to do,” but not one that violates the rights conferred by the Copyright Act. Posner further requested that Congress clarify how copyright law should be applied in the age of Internet video.

Jury Trial Begins with Testimony by Phil Schiller in Apple v. Samsung

Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, testified in the Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. trial Friday that Samsung outright copied all of Apple’s patented design, according to Wired. Apple claims Samsung is infringing on design patents for the iPhone and iPad and utility patents while Samsung claims Apple is infringing on its patent holdings. During questioning by Apple’s legal team Schiller explained his reaction to Samsung’s product, saying “I was pretty shocked when I saw the Galaxy S phone and the extent to which it appeared to copy Apple’s products” and that his “first thought was they’re going to steal our whole product line.” Addressing the issue of consumer “confusion” on cross examination Schiller testified “I looked at this phone and it was my opinion that Samsung has ripped off a number of our design elements and in doing that may be causing confusion.” The two companies have been embroiled in court battles for over a year. The jury trial for the case commenced Monday.

Posted On Aug - 7 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fourth Circuit Holds that Violating Employer’s Computer Use Restrictions Is Not a CFAA Violation

By Andrew Crocker – Edited by Michael Hoven

WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller, No. 11-1201 (4th Cir. Jul. 26, 2012)

Slip opinion

On July 26, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the South Carolina District Court in holding that Willie Miller’s violation of his employer WEC’s use restrictions on its proprietary computer systems and information was not a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller, No. 11-1201, slip op. at 2 (4th Cir. Jul. 26, 2012).

With the decision in WEC, the Fourth Circuit adds to a split among the federal circuit courts over whether an employee’s violation of an employer’s restrictions on use of a computer or computerized information that the employee is otherwise authorized to access can serve as the required element of “access[] . . . without authorization” or access “exceeding authorized access” for proving a CFAA violation. § 1030(a)(1). In the CFAA, to “exceed[] authorized access” is defined as “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” § 1030(e)(6). The court held that this definition is best read literally, such that a CFAA violation must involve improper access to a computer or computerized information, and not its “improper use.” WEC, No 11-1201 at 9. This reading is related, although not identical, to the Ninth Circuit’s recent en banc holding in United States v. Nosal, No. 10-10038 (9th Cir. April 10, 2012), previously reported on by the Digest, and in direct conflict with other circuits’ construction of the statute, notably the Seventh Circuit in International Airport Centers, LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006).

Bloomberg BNA provides an overview of the case. Eric Goldman Blog has more context on the circuit split.
(more…)

Posted On Aug - 6 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

The Eastern District of Texas Puts End to Eolas’ Patent Trolling
By Dorothy Du – Edited by Jeffery Habenicht

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 6:09-cv-446 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2012)
Slip opinion (hosted by Justia.com)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied plaintiff Eolas’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that its patents are valid or, alternatively, a new trial. Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 6:09-cv-446, slip. op. at 1 (E.D.Tex.July 19, 2012).

Judge Davis of the district court held that Eolas, a non-practicing entity, failed to show either that the jury had insufficient evidence to find the patents invalid or that they were entitled to a new trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the court found that, as required under Rule 50(b), the evidence at trial, primarily the defendant’s expert testimony, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the patents were anticipated and obvious. Id. at 11, 12, 15. Second, the court determined that there was no evidence that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice and, therefore, no new trial was required under Rule 59. Id. at 16.

Ars Technica provides an overview of case. ZDNet strongly approves the decision and predicts that the Federal Circuit would deny an appeal by Eolas.
(more…)

Posted On Jul - 31 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Canadian Supreme Court Ends Royalties for Online Music Downloads

By Andrew Crocker — Edited by Michael Hoven

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), 2012 SCC 34; Rogers Communications Inc. v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 35, SOCAN v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36.

Opinions available at the Supreme Court of Canada.

In three copyright decisions on July 12, the Canadian Supreme Court interpreted the scope of rights in musical works under Canada’s Copyright Act. In Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the court overturned a finding of the Canadian Copyright board that when a user downloads a song from an online music store, it is not a communication to the public. In Rogers, however, it found that streaming a song from an online music service was “a communication to the public” requiring a royalty payment to the artist for a performance of the song. Finally, in Bell, the court held that the 30–90 second streaming previews of songs available from stores like iTunes do not require payment of a royalty to the artist. Together, the rulings significantly change the status quo for royalties collected by SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) on behalf of artists for digital performances of their works.

Reuters has an overview of the decisions. Techvibes discusses the impact of the Entertainment Software Association decision on the video game industry.
(more…)

Posted On Jul - 23 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Jaehwan Park - Edited by Kayla Haran Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce ...

13399-surveillance_news

Second Circuit Prohi

By Filippo Raso – Edited by Shailin Thomas Microsoft v. US, ...

infringement

U.S. District Court

By Emily Chan – Edited by Evan Tallmadge In re TC ...

Senate

Congresswoman Speier

By Priyanka Nawathe – Edited by Henry Thomas H. R. Bill ...

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Oracle Renews Motion

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="175"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...