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 Appeals Ruling that Use of Java APIs in Android Violates Oracle’s Copyrights

By Katherine Kwong– Edited by Ashish Bakshi

On October 6, Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether copyright protections extend to the software’s “system or method of operation,” such as application programming interfaces (APIs). Google urges the Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s previous decision, arguing that allowing long-term copyrights on systems and methods of operations would stifle innovation and creativity.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ariane Moss

Microsoft Tax Banned in Italy

California Responds to Data Breaches by Strengthening Privacy Laws

EU Court Rules Embedding Is Not Copyright Infringement

Read More...

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

Google Appeals Ruling That Use of Java APIs in Android Violates Oracle’s Copyrights

By Katherine Kwong – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

On October 6, Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether copyright protections extend to the software’s “system or method of operation,” such as APIs. Google urges the Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s previous decision, arguing that allowing long-term copyrights on systems and methods of operations would stifle innovation and creativity.

Read More...

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

UN Report Finds Government Mass Surveillance Violates Privacy

By Olga Slobodyanyuk – Edited by Jesse Goodwin

The UN Report from the Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights found that government Internet mass surveillance violates Article 17 of the ICCPR by impinging individuals’ privacy.

Read More...

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

Functional Claim Elements Must Be Backed by Sufficient Structural Guidance

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Mengyi Wang

The Federal Circuit found that patent claim terms that offer no guidance to structure and are solely functional are means-plus-function terms and indefinite under § 112(f).

Read More...

District Court Dismisses Facebook User’s Claims that Account Termination Violated First and Fourteenth Amendments and Various State Laws
By Samantha Kuhn – Edited by Matt Gelfand

Young v. Facebook, Inc., 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010)
Opinion hosted by Justia.com

On October 25, 2010, the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss Karen Beth Young’s complaint that, in terminating her account, Facebook violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state contract and tort law, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court has granted Young a thirty-day period during which she may file an amended complaint.

With respect to the claim that Facebook deprived Young of equal protection by failing to accommodate her need for human interaction (resulting from bi-polar disorder), the court held that because Young failed to allege a deprivation of rights “under color of state law,” she has not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, the court noted that the simple existence of contracts and relationships between Facebook and the government are insufficient to establish a claim under § 1983. Young, the court suggests, would have to show some nexus between those specific contracts and the alleged rights violations or, if certain Facebook activities amounted to state action, a causal relationship between those activities and the injuries suffered.

With respect to the claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fraud, the court held that Young failed to state a claim on all four counts due to the absence of applicable contractual obligations on Facebook’s part, an explicit disclaimer in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that released responsibility for safety from third party conduct, and a lack of specificity in Young’s allegations. In addition to the specific shortcomings of Young’s pleading in this case, the court referred to the policy concerns manifested in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which severely restricts the liability of interactive computer service providers for content posted by third parties.

A brief summary of the claims and bases for dismissal can be found in Evan Brown’s article on the Internet Cases blog. Eric Goldman provides an additional overview of the court’s conclusions and takes issue with the court’s concession that, had Young argued that there was a bad faith or arbitrary cancellation of her account, this could potentially constitute a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 9 - 2010 1 Comment READ FULL POST

David Hosp and Ed Weiss offer their perspectives on the Cablevision case
By Paul Cathcart – Edited by Ryan Ward

On Thursday, November 4th, JOLT and the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society hosted a talk by David Hosp and Ed Weiss, two attorneys who worked on opposite sides of the “Cablevision” case, Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121 (2008). In that case, the Second Circuit held that Cablevision’s “Remote Storage” Digital Video Recorder (RS-DVR) system did not directly infringe the copyright interests of Cablevision’s content providers. JOLT Digest previously reported on the Second Circuit’s decision when it was released in August 2008.

The two speakers took turns discussing their experience on the case. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 7 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Esther Kang

Google Settles Buzz Class Action Suit for $8.5 Million

The New York Times reports that Google has settled a class action suit over privacy violations related to its release of the Buzz application last February.  The settlement stipulates that Google will set up an $8.5 million fund for Internet privacy organizations and will educate users about Buzz’s privacy features.  Google chose not to compensate individual users because few class members suffered actual damages, and because pro rata distribution is unfeasible for such a large class.  On November 2, Google sent email notifications to all its users regarding the settlement and opportunities to opt out of or object to the settlement.  ABC News reports that the district court has preliminarily approved the settlement and will consider it for final approval on January 31, 2011.

Supreme Court Set to Hear Bayh-Dole Patent Case

Bloomberg reports that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Stanford v. Roche to clarify the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which gives non-profit organizations and small businesses ownership of federally funded inventions.  Stanford University originally sued pharmaceutical company Roche for infringing its method for measuring HIV infection.  Stanford claimed ownership of the patent under the Bayh-Dole Act, but the Federal Circuit ruled that Roche co-owned the patent because one of the key inventors had assigned his rights to the company.  According to Corporate Counsel, the Obama administration and several major research universities supported the petition for certiorari.

Thomas-Rasset Receives $1.5 Million Verdict in Third Jury Trial

In her third trial since 2006, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was hit with a jury verdict of $1.5 million for sharing 24 songs, or $62,500 for each song.  In June 2009, a jury returned a verdict for $1.92 million, which Chief Judge Davis called “monstrous and shocking” before cutting it to $54,000 on remittitur.    CNET reports that the RIAA applauded the recent verdict, stating, “We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant’s misconduct.”  According to ABC News, Thomas-Rasset refuses to pay and plans to appeal the verdict on constitutional grounds.

Posted On Nov - 6 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

TTAB Reverses Refusal to Register Walther PPK Product Configuration
By Charles Griffin – Edited by Avis Bohlen

In re Carl Walther GmbH, No. 77096523 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2010)
Opinion

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) reversed an examiner’s refusal to register the product configuration of the Walther PPK pistol as a mark under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

The Board held, contrary to an examiner’s evaluation, that applicant Walther had established acquired distinctiveness for the configuration. Walther presented a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence, including a survey of gun enthusiasts, expert testimony, and Walther’s advertising efforts, as well as a 40-year history of unsolicited media exposure supplied by the PPK’s most notorious devotee, James Bond.

The TTABlog and Likelihood of Confusion comment on the Board’s decision, ascribing the result primarily to the instinctive persuasiveness of the Bond-related circumstantial evidence. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 4 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claim
By Nathan Lovejoy – Edited by Avis Bohlen

The Compliance Source, Inc. v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 4056112, No. 09-10726 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2010)
Slip Opinion

In Compliance Source, Inc. v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a software licensee, on the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the defendant’s counterclaim for breach of their settlement agreement.

The Fifth Circuit held that the license agreement for licensor’s database technology did not permit the licensee to authorize third-party use, even if such use was on behalf or for the benefit of the licensee. In so holding, the court took a narrow approach to its interpretation of the agreement, distinguishing the license in GreenPoint from earlier cases in light of its clear withholding of rights not expressly given.

The Internet Cases blog provides a brief overview of the case. WTN News features an analysis that discusses how the decision might leave open the possibility that a breach claim could extend to situation where third parties merely access software or technology licensed under similar terms. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 2 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
how-to-draw-an-android-android-phone_1_000000008746_5

Google Appeals Rulin

Google Appeals Ruling that Use of Java APIs in Android ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Ariane Moss Microsoft Tax Banned in Italy In a case filed ...

api_icon

Google Appeals Rulin

By Katherine Kwong – Edited by Ashish Bakshi Petition for Writ ...

13399-surveillance_news

UN Report Finds Gove

By Olga Slobodyanyuk – Edited by Jesse Goodwin The UN Report from ...

PatentDraftingTools

Functional Claim Ele

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Mengyi Wang Robert Bosch, LLC, ...