Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Considers Internet Service Provider’s Liability for Fake Profiles

By Ezra Pinsky – Edited by Dmitriy Tishyevich
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., May 7, 2009, No. 05-36189.
Slip Opinion

On May 7th, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint which had sought to impose negligence liability on Yahoo for hosting a fraudulent personals profile created by the plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend, despite plaintiff’s requests that it be removed and Yahoo’s assurances that it would be.  The district court dismissed the claim, holding that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunized Yahoo from liability.  Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge O’Scannlain affirmed in part, upholding the district court’s finding that Section 230(c)(1) protects Yahoo from negligence liability for third-party tortious material hosted on its website.  However, the court reversed in part and remanded, holding that Section 230(c)(1) does not protect Yahoo from a promissory estoppel claim if they promised to remove such content but failed to follow through.

Marc Randazza of the Citizen Media Law Project and Daniel Solove of Concurring Opinions provide overviews of the decision.  Eric Goldman of the Technology and Marketing Law Blog criticizes the opinion for being “filled with gratuitous and dangerous dicta, sloppy reasoning and sloppy language.” (more…)

Content by Vera Ranieri

Google Sued for Use of Trademarked Terms in Adwords Program

A class action was filed against Google on May 11, 2009 in federal court in Texas challenging its use of trademarked terms in its adwords program. The New York Times covered the case and surrounding issues. Ars Technica analyzes Google’s new AdWords policy.

ACLU Challenges Constitutionality of Gene Patents

The ACLU filed suit in the Southern District of New York challenging the patenting of genes and genetic tests as unconstitutional. The New York Times reported on the suit and the ACLU’s plaintiff. Patently-O provides further analysis and links to the ACLU blog and the complaint.

Dear Digest Readers,

The Digest will be taking a short break in the coming weeks as our Staff Writers prepare for final exams. We will be back shortly in mid-May with the same quality and coverage you’ve come to expect.

In the meantime, you can now follow JOLT Digest on twitter! We will tweet each time we put up a new post and link to content that may be of interest to our readers. We invite you to follow us at @JOLTdigest!

We look forward to a great summer of law & technology news! Stay tuned!

- The Digest Staff

By Tyler Lacey

Wiki Operator Seeks Right to Host Discussions About Circumvention of iPhone’s DRM System

Wired reports that on April 27, BluWiki operator OdioWorks filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Apple in order to “clarify the rights of the parties.” Last November, Apple threatened OdioWorks with legal action over a thread discussing how to use unapproved software on both the iPod and iPhone. Apple claimed that the content was “designed to circumvent Apple’s FairPlay digital rights management system” in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. OdioWorks initially complied with Apple’s takedown demands, but is now being supported by Keker Van Nest and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its lawsuit.

Ontario to Propose New Legislation Banning Ticketmaster from Reselling Tickets Through Its Subsidiaries

On April 29, The Toronto Star reported that Ontario’s Attorney General Chris Bentley plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw ticket sales companies such as Ticketmaster from reselling their tickets on subsidiary websites. Although ticket scalping is already illegal in Ontario, Bentley says the proposal is in response to complaints from customers upset with Ticketmaster’s practice of reselling tickets at prices above face value on its subsidiary TicketsNow. Ticketmaster had previously agreed to voluntary limitations on its use of TicketsNow in the United States.

European Union Votes to Extend Music Copyright by 20 Years

The European Parliament voted on April 23 to extend the length of musical copyright protection from 50 years to 70 years. If the proposal is approved by the European Council, artists will be able to continue receiving royalties for up to 70 years after the first release of their songs. Ars Technica reports that several groups have criticized the extension because most of the new royalties will go to record labels rather than the original performers of the songs.

Federal Circuit Addresses Patent Pools and Antitrust Violations

By Sharona Hakimi – Edited by Chris Kulawik
Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, April 20, 2009, No. 07-1386
Slip Opinion

On April 20^th, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a decision by the International Trade Commission in a suit regarding a patent pool for the “Orange Book” technology used to produce recordable and rewritable CDs. At the ITC, Princo conceded that it violated six patents owned by Philips Corp, but it claimed those patents were unenforceable due to patent misuse. Writing for the Federal Circuit, Judge Dyk affirmed the ITC’s findings that Princo failed to demonstrate that Philips committed patent misuse due to unlawful tying. However, the court remanded the case to determine whether Philips misused its patents by allegedly violating antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete with Sony.

The ITC originally ruled in Certain Recordable Compact Discs & Rewritable Compact Discs (Inv. No. 337-TA-474) that CD-R and CD-RWs imported by Princo infringed on six of Philips’ patents, all of which relate to industry standard “Orange Book” CD technology. The patents at issue were jointly developed by Philips and Sony in the 1980s and early 1990s.  When developing the technology and industry standards, Philips, Sony, and other companies pooled their patents and allowed Philips to grant package licenses to each company, with all of the patent owners sharing in the royalties.

Barry Herman and Alex Englehart of the ITC Law Blog summarize the decision.  Patently-O explains the relevant case law and antitrust theories. The Patent Prospector recaps the case’s background, providing excerpts from both the ITC and the Federal Circuit opinions. (more…)