Tech Daily Dose

Court Slaps TorrentSpy With $110 Mil Judgment

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday handed down a $110 million judgment for the infringement of thousands of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows and issued a permanent injunction banning the defendant TorrentSpy from further infringement actions.

The win for big Hollywood studios was the second defeat for TorrentSpy in the case. Last year the same court entered a default order and found the Web site's operators liable for copyright infringement. TorrentSpy was shut down in March. A message on the site said it was closed down because "the legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests, and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile."

“This substantial money judgment sends a strong message about the illegality of these sites,” said Motion Picture Association of America chief Dan Glickman. "The demise of TorrentSpy is a clear victory for the studios and demonstrates that such pirate sites will not be allowed to continue to operate without facing relentless litigation by copyright holders."

Posted by Andrew at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nip/Tuck Infomercial Complaints Spur Lawsuit

Watchdog group Public Citizen will argue in federal court in Detroit on Friday that a Michigan court should dismiss a lawsuit against a Web site operator who provided a forum for consumers of infomercial products. Arizona resident Justin Leonard created InfomercialScams.com, which allows users to read and post reviews.

One of the companies reviewed on the site, a Michigan-based cosmetic surgery company known as Lifestyle Lift Holding Inc., claimed Leonard’s site violates trademark law by using the firm's name to identify reviews of its cosmetic procedure. Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy will urge the court to dismiss Lifestyle Lift's case because the First Amendment protects the mention of the company’s trademark on Leonard’s site.

One of the 50+ reviewers complained: "I just wanted my jowls done, but the doctor recommended my neck also. My jowls were improved slightly, my neck is more wrinkled than it ever was." Another said: "I lost my hearing in my right ear. I called and they said it was just some swelling and would eventually go down. Well, it has been 6 months now, and I still can't hear out of my right ear." Wowza!

Posted by Andrew at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Supreme Court Hears Pay Phone Fee Case

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral argument on Monday morning in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services, a case involving a dispute over pay phone fees. Last year, the court ruled in Global Crossing Telecommunications v. Metrophones Telecommunications that pay phone operators could sue for greater compensation. Yes! Pay phones. We might as well be talking about 8-track tapes or Johannes Gutenberg's printing press. For those of you who might have forgotten, since we now live in a mobile device-driven world, a pay phone is a coin-operated public telephone (see adjacent photo). A case preview written for the SCOTUS Blog by Akin Gump's Steven Wu is available here.

(Photo Credit: macroninja via Flickr)

Posted by Andrew at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Harry Potter Goes To Court Over Copyright Fight

A federal court in New York on Monday will hear opening arguments over whether an independent book publisher has the right to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon, an unofficial reference guide to the Harry Potter series of books and movies. The trial is expected to last several days.

Attorneys from the Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society will argue that their client, RDR Books, has the right to publish the guidebook under the "fair use" doctrine, which safeguards the use of copyrighted material so long as it is used transformatively and does not damage the market value of the original work.

The suit began last October when Warner Bros., which owns the film rights to the Harry Potter books, and Harry Potter author J.K Rowling filed a lawsuit to block the Lexicon's publication. The 400-word book is a print counterpart to a fan-created Web site, which includes information on the series' characters, places, animals and magic spells. Read more here.

Posted by Andrew at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Supreme Court Won't Hear Microsoft Case

The SCOTUS Blog reminded me that I failed to mention the fate of one high-tech case during Monday's Supreme Court coverage. Justices will not hear Microsoft v. Novell. At issue is whether a company is barred from filing a lawsuit claiming antitrust violations in a market if it does not take part in that market, either as a consumer or as a competitor.

The appeal was an attempt by Microsoft "to head off a nearly four-year-old triple damages lawsuit against it by Novell, claiming that Microsoft harmed rival software programs for office applications such as word-processing and spreadsheet display, by its actions in the market for computer operating systems — a market in which Novell did not participate," according to the blog. Chief Justice John Roberts did not take part in the order in the case.

Posted by Andrew at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

High Court Won't Hear Anchorwoman Scandal Case

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a copyright infringement case involving footage that circulated on the Internet of an Ohio television anchorwoman taking part in a wet t-shirt contest while on vacation with her husband in Key West, Fla.

The case involved Catherine Bosley, who previously served as a morning and noontime anchor on Youngstown's WKBN-TV. She resigned from the station after a wave of negative publicity and is now an anchor/reporter for WOIO-TV in Cleveland. In the lawsuit, Bosley accused staff at WFMJ, her former station's rival, of copying and distributing copyrighted works (the racy video).

A 2007 federal appeals court ruling in the case described the proceedings as "extensive and rancorous." Read that opinion here. Speaking of topics that get the FCC fired up, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the commission's policy on "fleeting expletives." Check CongressDaily's PM edition for details.

Posted by Andrew at 02:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Troll Tracker In Trouble

The Patent Troll Tracker, whose identity only recently came to light as Cisco Systems IP Director Rick Frenkel, is now facing a lawsuit. The frequently cited compiler of patent stats, who remained anonymous for some time, is being sued for defamation by a pair of Texas patent lawyers who appeared in the blog, according to the Prior Art blog.

Peter Zura's 271 Blog got this statement from Cisco: "The parties have mutually agreed to make no comment on the lawsuit in question at this time. That said, we would like to underscore that the comments made in the employee's personal blog represented his own opinions and several of his comments are not consistent with Cisco's views."

FYI: It looks like Frenkel's blog is now accessible to invited readers only.

Posted by Andrew at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tech Watchdog Takes On RIAA In Arizona Court

The Electronic Frontier Foundation will urge a federal judge in Phoenix on Wednesday to block the Recording Industry Association of America's lawsuit against two Arizona residents for having music files in a "shared" folder on their computer.

The RIAA is seeking thousands of dollars in damages from the defendants, Pamela and Jeffery Howell, EFF says. But rather than proving the Howells distributed the files, the RIAA claims only that they had songs in a shared folder for file-sharing software Kazaa (without proof that anyone other than their own investigators downloaded songs from them).

"This amounts to suing someone for attempted copyright infringement -- something the Copyright Act simply does not allow," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann said. "It's not enough to say the law could have been broken. The RIAA must prove it actually was broken."

Posted by Andrew at 08:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

'Wikileaks' Case Gets EFF, ACLU Backing

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Project on Government Oversight on Tuesday filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit where a federal judge ordered the disabling of a domain name associated with "Wikileaks," a Web site that gives whistleblowers a public online forum for posting materials of concern.

In early February, Swiss bank Julius Baer filed suit against Wikileaks for hosting 14 allegedly leaked documents regarding personal banking transactions of the company's customers. Wikileaks' domain name registrar Dynadot was also sued. Later in the month, the court issued a permanent injunction, disabling wikileaks.org.

"Dynadot's private agreement to disable access to its customer's domain name -- and the court's endorsement of that agreement -- raise serious First Amendment concerns," EFF's Matt Zimmerman said in a press release. The injunction "should remind everyone who hosts critical information on the Web that such information may only remain accessible as long as your service provider or registrar is willing to stand up for you."

The EFF, ACLU, POGO, and a Wikileaks user asked the court for permission to intervene in order to dissolve the injunction disabling the wikileaks.org domain name. A San Francisco judge will hear arguments Friday regarding a related issue: whether to extend a temporary restraining order aimed at preventing the distribution of the disputed Julius Baer documents.

The Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition also weighed in on the case. "A court order disabling access to an entire Web site goes far beyond what the First Amendment permits," CDT General Counsel John Morris said.

Posted by Andrew at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

IP Crusaders: ABBA, Prince & The Village People

This is going to sound like a bad joke but soul sensation Prince and costumed crooners The Village People are teaming up… to sue the popular torrent site Pirate Bay, Slashdot reported on Sunday.

The Web Sheriff law firm, which specializes in protection of copyrights and trademarks, has also asked the Swedish glam band ABBA to join the action. The suit is seeking "millions of dollars" in damages, although it is still uncertain to whom the charges will be directed, Slashdot said.

What's next? Perhaps ABBA, Prince and The Village People will come together to do a benefit concert to raise funds for their legal battle. Now that would be something to see.

Posted by Andrew at 08:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Music Publishers File Class Action Suit

From a National Music Publishers' Association press release:

Several members of the National Music Publishers’ Association today filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of music copyright owners against MediaNet, which operates an online music service, seeking damages, a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to put an end to MediaNet's willful and ongoing copyright infringement.

“It is critical to the future of music that creators take a stand against free riders such as MediaNet that earn profits on the backs of others’ work,” said NMPA President and CEO David Israelite. “The case of MediaNet is particularly egregious because it offers copyrighted musical works to its partners and consumers knowing that it does not have permission to do so and that it is not compensating the copyright owners.” [Read more]

Update: Digital Media Association chief Jon Potter, whose trade group represents MediaNet, issued the following statement in reaction to the lawsuit: “Music publishers are suing a company that lawfully distributes music to consumers and pays millions of dollars to creators. This strategy will eventually leave only illegal music services available. How does that benefit publishers and songwriters?”

Posted by Andrew at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1.8 Mil. Pages Of Case Law Put Online For Public Use

High-tech activist Carl Malamud, who wants to force the federal government to make government information widely available to the public, has partnered with the Creative Commons to put 1.8 million pages of U.S. case law online.

The files are all marked with the new Creative Commons "CCØ" label, indicating that the contents are works of the federal government and are free of copyright or other restrictions for dissemination and reuse. The papers had previously only been accessible in law libraries or through subscriptions to Thomson and LexisNexis.

Monday's release covers all Supreme Court decisions and all federal appeals court decisions from 1950 through the present. The release is equivalent to 1,858 volumes of case law in book form, a stack of books 348 feet tall, according to a press release on Malamud's public.resource.org Web site.

Former Justice Department special trial counsel David Boies, who supported the project, said "practical access for all Americans to legal cases and material is essential to the rule of law." The initiative is "an important step in reducing the barriers to effective representation of average citizens and public interest advocates," he said.

Continue reading "1.8 Mil. Pages Of Case Law Put Online For Public Use" »

Posted by Andrew at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Justice Breyer's Bicycle Theory

When you've been a Supreme Court justice for more than a decade and you've heard all sorts of interesting (and not so interesting) cases, sometimes it helps to shake things up. That's what happened on Wednesday when Justice Stephen Breyer -- who his known for his pragmatism -- attempted to get his arms around a high-tech patent spat.

The case, which you can read about in Technology Daily's PM Edition, involves the complex "patent exhaustion" doctrine, which holds that a patentee or licensee cannot assert patent rights after the first sale or license to sell an article that embodies the patented invention.

In questioning attorneys for the companies at odds in the litigation, Breyer used the manufacturing, selling and repurposing of bicycle parts as an easier to understand example. He explained that he knows how a bicycle works but does not have a detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a computer chip.

At one point, Breyer's thought-provoking illustration elicited a wave of laughter from the chamber when he painted a mental picture of 90 patent examiners giving chase to the black robed one perched atop a Huffy or BMX. I started to zone out when Carter Phillips, one of the attorneys arguing the case, tried to change up the bicycle model for that of a StairMaster®.

Posted by Andrew at 02:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Conyers Criticizes 'Stoneridge' Ruling

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers responded to the Supreme Court's decision in the high-profile securities law case known as Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta on Tuesday, calling the justices' majority opinion "wrong-headed."

In the 5-3 decision, the court found that investors seeking relief from third parties in corporate fraud cases cannot bring private lawsuits unless their investment decisions specifically relied on the "deceptive acts" of those parties. Read more about the case here.

"This is a sad day for those who believe perpetrators of fraud should be held accountable under the law to their victims," the Michigan Democrat said in a statement. Conyers said he was "particularly saddened" that the court ruled "without the benefit of hearing from the Solicitor General, who had been urged by SEC Chairman [Christopher] Cox to intervene on the side of the defrauded investors."

Posted by Andrew at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

High-Tech Securities Case Prompts Reaction

The Supreme Court handed down a verdict in one of the most important securities law cases in recent history on Tuesday [Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta] and it involved allegations against two major high-tech firms. See Technology Daily's PM Edition for all the details.

The split ruling elicited a flurry of reactions, including an interesting one from the American Enterprise Institute's Theodore Frank. He told us that he did not find the majority opinion surprising and it was "good news for investors" -- but Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent was worth noting.

Stevens' disagreement "is a stirring defense of judicial activism and a call for judges to act even when the legislature has not given them the authority to do so," Frank argued. The justice's commentary speaks to the "central issue of our times in terms of the role of the judiciary," he said.

The larger question posed, according to Frank is: "What role do we want the Supreme Court to have -- judge as arbiter or judge as lawmaker?" "This really does a lot to emphasize the difference between [Chief Justice John] Roberts and Stevens," he said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the decision, "coupled with last year's indictment of some of America's biggest class action trial lawyers for large-scale fraud and corruption charges, is a positive step for investors and all those concerned about America's competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace."

The American Association for Justice said it found the decision "surprisingly much narrower than expected." AAJ President Kathleen Flynn Peterson said the court "clearly stated that defrauded investors still have an avenue for recourse under this country’s securities laws."

Posted by Andrew at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Supreme Court To Hear Quanta Case This Week

Reprinted from the Nov. 26, 2007 edition of National Journal's Technology Daily

Tech Case May Shape Rule On Patent 'Exhaustion'
By Andrew Noyes

The Supreme Court will usher in 2008 with a high-profile technology case involving a major patent dispute between a group of Taiwanese computer manufacturers and their South Korean competitor. Oral argument is scheduled for Jan. 16.

The plaintiffs, led by Quanta Computer, want the court to upend a 2006 ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that they claim would let patent holders -- like rival LG Electronics -- inappropriately seek royalties from multiple companies.

Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge recently filed a brief arguing that the court incorrectly interpreted a principle that says patent owners "exhaust" their rights after a product is sold and cannot continue imposing post-sale conditions or filing infringement suits.

The watchdog groups, and numerous other Quanta supporters, claim that letting patent owners impose such use restrictions could harm consumers. They say contract law is the proper tool for protecting a patentee's legitimate interest in restricting post-sale uses.

The brief, authored by EFF staffers Fred von Lohmann and Jason Schultz and outside counsel Marc Bernstein, argues that failing to rule in Quanta's favor could lead to "increased information costs when trying to ascertain restrictions on patented goods."

Cisco Systems, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and the online auction site eBay filed their own brief that elaborates on perceived problems with the current regime. The American Antitrust Institute and Computer and Communications Industry Association also weighed in, urging the justices to overturn the appeals court.

Continue reading "Supreme Court To Hear Quanta Case This Week" »

Posted by Andrew at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Software Guru Slams Viacom, Ninth Circuit Court

The Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal of a trademark case brought against the media company Viacom by a small California software firm called M2. Read the full story in Technology Daily's PM Edition.

M2's owner Dave Escamilla sent us a statement after deadline emphasizing that his is a "federally-registered trademark, brand, and core corporate identity." "For a major conglomerate like Viacom to come along and steal our identity is not right," he charged.

Escamilla also took a swing at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously refused to give M2 a cut of Viacom's revenues. A small shop battling a behemoth "is faced with a Hobson's choice" of either spending serious money on a suit or giving up its trademark, he said.

M2 Software is reviewing its options for rehearing. "We hope that, at minimum, we are raising recognition of the value of the trademark intellectual property rights of smaller companies," Escamilla added.

Posted by Andrew at 08:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Court Sets Dates In Web Royalties Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has set the briefing dates on a case filed by the Digital Media Association, National Public Radio and small commercial webcasters. The parties are seeking a review of the Copyright Royalty Board's controversial Internet radio rate-setting.

According to the Broadcast Law Blog, briefs from the webcasting groups who appealed are due Feb. 25 and the brief by the CRB (represented by the Justice Department) is due April 25. Digital royalty collector SoundExchange has to submit its filing on May 15. Replies are due June 12 and oral arguments have not been scheduled.

Blog author David Oxenford, who represents small commercial webcasters in the proceeding, said the court takes a summer break in July and August, the argument is likely to be held next fall. A decision could come very late in 2008 or early in 2009.

Technology Daily's original coverage of the groups' request for court intervention can be found here.

Posted by Andrew at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Townsend To Congress: Keep Intel Gap Closed

President Bush's homeland security adviser Frances Townsend on Monday urged Congress to permanently pass controversial foreign intelligence reforms that are set to expire in February.

In a Roll Call editorial, Townsend wrote: "The administration's goal can be summed up easily: We want our intelligence professionals to have the tools and flexibility needed to prevent a terrorist attack, while protecting the rights of Americans here at home."

She said lawmakers must "keep a critical intelligence gap closed" by making the temporary statute permanent and providing "meaningful liability protection" to telecommunications firms that may have helped the government eavesdrop.

Technology Daily's AM Edition reports that the House is scheduled to consider a new Democratic measure this week. Critics believe that version does not provide strong enough protections.

Posted by Andrew at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SCOTUS: Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta

Technology Daily did not publish Tuesday due to an office move but the story below is reprinted from CongressDaily. Look for more coverage of Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta in Wednesday's PM Edition.

Securities Fraud Case Arguments Made To Supreme Court
By Andrew Noyes

Supreme Court justices today heard arguments in what many believe to be the most critical securities fraud case in a decade as they were asked whether defrauded investors can recover money from third parties. In Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta, shareholders of cable television provider Charter Communications want to sue business partners Motorola and Scientific Atlanta.

The firms, which manufacture set-top boxes, allegedly engaged in sham transactions that inflated Charter's revenue by $17 million. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a lower federal court dismissed the claim but stated that Motorola and Scientific Atlanta, which was acquired by Cisco Systems in 2005, aided and abetted the fraud.

During oral arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Scientific-Atlanta attorney Stephen Shapiro whether there could be a "middle ground" between one's status as a principal in such a case and a party that aids and abets. Justice David Souter also asked whether there could be "an overlap" between the two camps.

Justice Antonin Scalia questioned Stanley Grossman, who represented the investors, whether any aider and abettor that engages in a deceptive act should be considered a principal in the fraud and therefore be held liable.

Continue reading "SCOTUS: Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta" »

Posted by Andrew at 03:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

RIAA Wins Big In Court, Faces Criticism

Staffers over at the Recording Industry Association of America may still be doing a victory dance at their posh downtown Washington headquarters after Thursday's triumph against illegal music-downloading.

A federal jury found a Minnesota woman liable for damages for sharing music online and ordered Jammie Thomas to pay record labels $220,000 -- or $9,250 for each of 24 songs for which the companies sought damages. It was the first file-sharing case to go to trial.

Thomas Sydnor, who heads the Progress and Freedom's Center for the Study of Digital Property, issued a statement saying the jury in Capitol Records v. Thomas "voted in favor of both the plaintiffs and the rule of law."

By rejecting the defendant's "a-neighbor-could-have-done-it defense," the jury indicated that the holder of an Internet account is responsible for illegal uses of their account, he said. By awarding well above the $750-per-song minimum, "the jury spoke to both the illegality and immorality of unauthorized downloading."

The RIAA released a statement welcoming the jury's decision. "The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner." The trade group also pledged to keep filing lawsuits against copyright infringers.

"This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services and helping ensure that record companies are able to invest in new bands of tomorrow," RIAA said.

Continue reading "RIAA Wins Big In Court, Faces Criticism" »

Posted by Andrew at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AEI Lawyer Taps Blogosphere

An attorney involved in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving Charter Communications, Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta is reaching out to bloggers, hoping to generate some buzz online before the case is heard on Tuesday.

Ted Frank, director of the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the America Enterprise Institute, was scheduled to speak with Web scribes for an hour on Friday afternoon about Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, a securities fraud case.

Earlier in the day, Frank and a handful of other legal experts held a briefing at AEI to discuss the potential impact of the case that some have called the Roe v. Wade of securities law. Read Technology Daily's PM Edition for more.

In other Supreme Court news, the Oyez Project just put audio files of all the oral arguments from the October 2006 term online. The files are available at this page under the respective case names in the right-hand column (Thanks SCOTUSblog).

Posted by Andrew at 01:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Former PTO Chief Reflects On KSR Case

Former Patent and Trademark Office chief Q. Todd Dickinson, who now heads General Electric's intellectual property shop, told a roomful of lawyers on Monday that the Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex suggets that the body has become "much more skeptical of the patent system."

The high court's unanimous ruling last spring found that the so-called "teaching, suggestion and motivation" standard for determining prior art was too rigid and must be applied more flexibly. A conference sponsored by BNA and the American Bar Association examined the rules of the road in the wake of KSR.

Dickinson said it is "too soon to tell what the impact [of KSR] will be on prosecution." The decision will likely lead to fewer filings, which is "not a bad thing," he said. The case could also prompt harder fought PTO actions, more patent rejections and more appeals.

GE, which filed a brief in the KSR case, will not change its legal strategy in the near term, he told the group. The company is going to "wait and see how it plays out," but Dickinson said he will "probably pay more attention to searching [for prior art]."

Continue reading "Former PTO Chief Reflects On KSR Case" »

Posted by Andrew at 01:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SCOTUS: Looking Back On Last Term

The Supreme Court's new term began Monday and in honor of the occasion, Tech Daily Dose takes a look back at the technology-oriented cases heard by the justices during their last sitting. The following is reprinted from the July 6, 2007 edition of National Journal's Technology Daily.

High Court Term Sees Wins For Tech Industry
By Andrew Noyes

The Supreme Court finished its first full term under Chief Justice John Roberts last month after having made a handful of rulings in the patent and antitrust arenas of substantial interest to technology policy watchers.

During his short tenure, Roberts has outdone his predecessor, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, with his focus on industry-oriented cases, despite an ever-shrinking docket, Latham & Watkins partner Maureen Mahoney said at a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce briefing.

At the same event, Morrison & Foerster attorney Beth Brinkmann pointed to another sign that the court is business-friendly - the fact that there is little division among justices when issuing opinions. In the patent arena, there was "virtual unanimity" and in antitrust, there were "solid victories" as well, she said.

Here is a quick roundup of pertinent cases argued before the court.

--KSR v. Teleflex: The court unanimously found that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to reject a claim by the gas-pedal manufacturer KSR that its product, similar to that of rival Teleflex, was too simple to warrant a patent. The high court said that the so-called "teaching, suggestion and motivation" standard for determining prior art was too rigid and must be applied more flexibly.

Continue reading "SCOTUS: Looking Back On Last Term" »

Posted by Andrew at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Spector Judge Gets Web Threat

A posting on the social networking site MySpace that appeared to threaten the judge in music producer Phil Spector's murder trial has become the latest twist in the lengthy case, the AP reported.

On Tuesday, court officials disclosed the posting, which stated "I love Phil Spector" and "The Evil Judge should die!" The message was on a MySpace page called "Team Spector" and was taken down, officials said. The judge in the case is Larry Fidler.

Sheriff's investigators were looking into the messages, which were signed "xoxo Chelle," AP reported. Spector's wife is named Rachelle, but one of his defense attorneys, said she denied having anything to do with the notes.

Specter is charged with second-degree murder in the February 2003 death of actress Lana Clarkson. The case went to the jury on Sept. 10 and the jury could not reach a decision.

Posted by Andrew at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Upcoming: 'Securities Law's Roe v. Wade'

A securities fraud case before the Supreme Court this term could have repercussions for those harmed in the 2001 collapse of the Enron energy firm and other "mega-cases," Georgetown University law professor Donald Langevoort said at a Monday briefing.

In Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, the court is asked to determine whether defrauded investors can recover money from third parties (read more in Technology Daily's PM Edition). It's not a stretch to call this "securities law's Roe v. Wade," he said.

The case involves a group of Charter Communications investors who want to sue the cable television provider's business partners Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta. The firms reportedly engaged in sham transactions to inflate Charter's revenue by $17 million.

Here's how it all went down, according to Langevoort: The two vendors sold set-top boxes to Charter at inflated prices; the extra money was used to buy additional advertising airtime; the ad sales helped Charter's revenue grow. Pretty clever, eh?

Posted by Andrew at 03:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Supreme Court Readies For New Term

The Supreme Court is gearing up for its new term, which begins next week, and Technology Daily's PM Edition will have a preview story. But during my weekend review of the cases that have been granted certiorari, I couldn’t help longing for last fall.

The court's previous calendar had a number of cases that were closely watched by the high-tech community, thus requiring me to be in the historic chamber pretty frequently. They included KSR v. Teleflex, Microsoft v. AT&T, MedImmune v. Genentech, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing (Read my round-up here).

But the upcoming term looks like it could be a sleepier one for us (with a few exceptions that you can read about in my coverage). I'm banking on the court's Monday closed-door conference where new cases could be added to the docket. A few more tech-centric ones would be appreciated.

Alas, there are some compelling cases outside of my bailiwick. The court plans to consider whether Guantanamo prisoners may bring habeas actions in U.S. civilian courts; whether the White House can direct Texas courts to engage in additional review of a murder conviction; and whether a judge can diverge from U.S. sentencing guidelines' rules for crack and powder cocaine cases.

Posted by Andrew at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AltLaw.org Launched

In an effort to make federal case law fast and easy to search, more accessible to the public and free, Columbia Law School and the University of Colorado Law School have launched a new Web site called AltLaw.org. The site has the potential to dramatically change the landscape of case law resources, according to a Columbia press release distributed on Thursday.

AltLaw.org contains nearly 170,000 decisions dating back to the early 1990s from the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts. The site’s creators, Timothy Wu, Stuart Sierra and Paul Ohm, said the site’s database will grow over time.

"It’s been more than 10 years since the start of the Internet revolution, and case law is one area that has not budged. Somebody has to take the initiative. We want to open the law to the public," Wu. said. He envisions the site being used by many who want to avoid hundreds of dollars per hour in fees for proprietary law databases and legal scholars.

Posted by Andrew at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Spying Trial: Down The Rabbit Hole?

Technology Daily's AM Edition on Thursday reports on the legal battle that played out in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a day earlier between critics of the Bush administration's anti-terror surveillance programs and government lawyers who cited national security risks to try to get the cases thrown out.

Writers for Wired News' Threat Level live-blogged the hearing in San Francisco. The money quote, according to BoingBoing.net, was from Judge M. Margaret McKeown: "I feel like I'm in Alice and Wonderland."

When the lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which claims AT&T has collaborated with the government on electronic eavesdropping, attempted to argue the existence of a secret AT&T room is enough to prove dragnet Internet surveillance, McKeown offered more colorful commentary. "There's a Las Vegas quality to your argument," she said, alluding to the "What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" commercials.

The event was well attended too. Threat Level reported that the courtroom filled "quickly with more than 20 attorneys" as well as 80 spectators seated and standing. Another 40 filed into an overflow room. Read our preview story from earlier in the week here.

Posted by Andrew at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Vick Scandal Spurs Lawsuit, eBay Sales

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick would spend less than a year in prison if he accepts the plea agreement offered to him by the federal prosecutors pursuing dogfighting charges against him.

But if a South Carolina inmate gets his way in a separate federal lawsuit filed against Vick this summer, the Virginia Tech alum would be forced to fork over $63 billion. Vick also would be required to be more considerate of the plaintiff's feelings.

Jonathan Lee Riches has accused Vick of stealing pit bulls from him, selling the dogs on eBay and attempting to use the profits to purchase missiles from the Iranian government. The complaint, which was handwritten because Riches did not have access to a typewriter in jail, also includes federal tort claims including, but not limited to, "injury to wildlife, conspiracy, illegal dogfighting, extortion, racketeering, gambling, copyright infringement, identity theft, fraud, threats to commit violent acts" and brutality.

According to Riches, Vick damaged the radio frequency identification chips in his dogs' collars so that he would not be able to track them after they were stolen. He also has accused Vick of violating copyright law by putting his name on his "personal football outfit and casual clothing" without compensating him accordingly and selling t-shirts, mugs and hats with Riches' name on them.

Continue reading "Vick Scandal Spurs Lawsuit, eBay Sales" »

Posted by Andrew at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Comcast Case & Cocktail Party Conversation

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard a patent infringement feud involving cable giant Comcast on Friday and I was psyched to attend. Why? Because the cases I regularly cover don't typically make for sparkling cocktail party conversation.

Intellectual property legal battles frequently involve high-profile tech and telecom firms but are obscure and technologically sophisticated. This morning's case, while incredibly dense, focused on Comcast Digital Voice, the company's Internet telephony offering.

The two-year-old service, which recently surpassed three million subscribers, is the focus of a nationwide TV advertising blitz. The witty commercials, like the one shown above, air relentlessly in Washington. So, folks will "get" what I'm talking about -- at least in part. Plus, I couldn’t resist posting video of a goofy looking guy tattooed like a tiger.

See Technology Daily's PM Edition for coverage of the case.

Posted by Andrew at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Celeb Lawyer Slams 'Dateline'

A prominent celebrity lawyer representing a doctor accused of being a sexual predator slammed "Dateline NBC" on Tuesday in a California courtroom, gossip site TMZ.com reported. Blair Berk, whose clients include Lindsay Lohan and Mel Gibson, is currently working for Dr. Maurice Wolin, an oncologist who was taken down by cops last year as part of Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series.

Prosecutors argue that Wolin made plans to have a sexual encounter with someone on the Internet who he thought was a 13-year-old girl. In reality, the computer user was Xavier Von Erck, founder of Perverted Justice.

According to TMZ, Berk grilled a police officer whose department worked with the gotcha group and the NBC show during a preliminary hearing in Santa Rosa, Calif. Berk maintained that Perverted Justice got money for snagging alleged predators and therefore entrapped her client.

Read more at TMZ.com.

Posted by Andrew at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cybersettle Case... Still Unsettled

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month heard oral arguments in a case involving feuding Internet-based dispute-resolution providers Cybersettle and the National Arbitration Forum. At issue was a complex Cybersettle patent that pertains to various methods and computer systems for performing online dispute resolution.

The three-judge panel this week remanded the case. On appeal, the court found that a claimed method requires actual practice of the method -- not simply the capability, according to Dennis Crouch's Patently-O blog. Now, the lower court will need to determine what portion of NAF's infringing actions included multiple offers and demands, he said.

For added insight, read our original coverage of the case after the jump.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Continue reading "Cybersettle Case... Still Unsettled" »

Posted by Andrew at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Big Day @ SCOTUS

The Supreme Court handed down two major patent-related opinions on Monday -- KSR International v. Teleflex and Microsoft v. AT&T. Technology Daily's PM edition has one story on the rulings and another with reaction from the high-tech sector and attorneys.

But here's what more court watchers had to say…

Solveig Singleton of the Progress & Freedom Foundation said the court, which ruled in favor of KSR, "reached the right result." "The case is on the right track in paving the road for a more stringent standard of non-obviousness," she said.

Congress should exercise caution in the wake of the decision, Singleton said. "Rather than tackling the statutory standard of obviousness directly, address the better-understood institutional and legal process issues," she said. More circuit courts should hear patent appeals to give the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit some feedback, she said.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association also hailed the KSR ruling. The "non-obviousness" standard had been eroded by lower courts and, as a result, "junk patents" thrive, the group said. According to CCIA President Ed Black, the ruling reaffirms what his group has long insisted -- that "the patent system’s purpose is to promote innovation, not patents."

Continue reading "Big Day @ SCOTUS" »

Posted by Andrew at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yahoo Wins Case Against Sony

A jury decided Friday in Internet portal Yahoo's favor, ending a six-year legal battle in which Sony-BMG Music and the recording industry had sought damages of more than $1 billion. They claimed that Yahoo Radio was an interactive service and therefore was infringing sound recording copyrights.

Digital Media Association Executive Director Jonathan Potter called the ruling "a huge win for music innovators and listeners." "Consumer-influenced radio is a fabulous marriage of music, technology and fans," he said in a statement. DiMA represents Yahoo and other online content providers in Washington.

Meanwhile, a Bridge Ratings study released earlier in the week showed the most popular Internet radio service was America Online's, with those surveyed spending 15.25 hours per week listening to the service. Yahoo and Live 365 were the runners-up with 10.25 and 10.6 hours respectively.

According to the study, the number of monthly Web radio listeners jumped 26 percent last year bringing the average monthly listening audience to 72 million in 2006, up from 45 million in 2005.

Posted by Andrew at 02:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)