tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41016723254145826902024-02-20T11:38:25.886-08:00Info. Tech. LawInformation technology law: the internet, intellectual property and licensing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-13960997931388188432007-08-20T14:39:00.001-07:002007-08-20T14:39:34.100-07:00AT&T's mandatory arbitration...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... is also found unconscionable: <a href='http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement'>Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services</a>.<br /><blockquote>Under this three-part inquiry, courts are required to determine: (1) whether the agreement is “ ‘a consumer contract of adhesion’ ” drafted by a party that has superior bargaining power;<br />(2) whether the agreement occurs “ ‘in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages’ ”; and (3) whether “ ‘it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.’ ”<br />***<br />Because all three parts of the Discover Bank test are satisfied, Cingular’s class arbitration waiver is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and cannot be enforced.<br /></blockquote><br />Ouch!<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-35102837774683422382007-08-20T06:00:00.001-07:002007-08-20T06:00:03.664-07:00Take it or leave it...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... mandatory, binding arbitration / choice of law clause found unenforceable in consumer agreement: <a href='http://static.scribd.com/docs/ggkys1u5yak7c.pdf'>Oestreicher v. Alienware.</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-6490473452323802562007-07-31T15:01:00.001-07:002007-07-31T15:01:15.290-07:00Is copyright infringement...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... covered by your software license agreement's consequential damages disclaimer? <a href='http://www.thelen.com/tlu/PiperVSungard.pdf'>Piper v. SunGard</a>.<br /><br /><p>The gist: to the extent you base your copyright claim on breach of contract, perhaps.</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-61369374893059890822007-07-31T08:18:00.001-07:002007-07-31T08:18:54.745-07:00When even service level...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>.... commitments are not enough: <a href='http://www.2old2play.com/code/SK_EPIC_Complaint.pdf'>Silicon Knights v. Epic</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-13146050830712961432007-06-11T07:25:00.001-07:002007-06-11T07:25:43.104-07:00Church sues Sony over rights in church architecture...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... for Sony's 'sick' game: <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/06/11/sony.manchester/index.html?eref=rss_topstories'>Church wants cash for 'sick' game</a> <br></br> <blockquote>Entertainment giant Sony has been branded irresponsible for using a cathedral from a city plagued by gun crime in a violent video game.<br /><br />The Church of England says the company did not seek permission to use the Manchester Cathedral in the game, and is demanding an apology and a large donation to be used in its work with young people.</blockquote><br /><br />I don't know anything about British law regarding copyright in architecture, but I doubt that, even if there were rights at one time, they continue today. Or, even if they do, that they would extend to something like this. Sounds like an interesting research project/law review article.<br /><br />Another theory might be something under trademark rights. However, that also seems like a stretch.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-5116285836934088582007-06-09T05:12:00.001-07:002007-06-09T05:27:27.262-07:00Linden Labs' Terms of Service "unconscionable"...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... in part because the Eastern District relied on EMPLOYMENT and FRANCHISEE CASES! I kid you not: read for yourself: <a href='http://pub.bna.com/eclr/064925_053007.pdf'>Bragg v. Linden</a>.<br /><br />Linden Labs' the folks that bring you <a href='http://www.secondlife.com'>Second Life</a> lost it's motion to compel arbitration because the court found the Terms of Service both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.<br /><br /> When discussing the TOS' procedural aspect, the court points to two California employment agreements about "take-it-or-leave-it" employment contracts. Anyone could figure out that the policies in those cases would be considerably different than the policies underlying a service agreement. This sounds like "clear error" and Linden Labs ought to win on appeal.<br /><br />The court also stated that there are no market alternatives because no other online world offers "its participants property rights in virtual land." I'm not sure which way this argument should cut. Might the fact that they alone offer this feature be reason that the terms should be given more weight? To what other relevant market participant is the court comparing unconscionability's "shock the conscious?"<br /><br />I will agree with the court with respect to one argument: PUT YOUR ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE. Linden Labs did not.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-18571866363922714602007-06-07T18:38:00.001-07:002007-06-07T18:38:50.463-07:00Gateway sued in small claims...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... despite its arbitration clause probably because the consumer's faulty computer prevented him from seeing notice. Though, this <a href='http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/209144.html'>'Stubborn' PC owner<br /></a> is going to have an uphill battle: <blockquote>As Gateway tells it in court filings, the company replaced Sheehan's computer a few months after he first complained, and he kept both machines.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-7828043601572991132007-06-04T07:10:00.001-07:002007-06-04T07:10:15.280-07:00Missed this one: TheGlobe.com loses CAN-SPAM case...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... brought by MySpace.com: <a href='http://pub.bna.com/eclr/06cv3391_022707.pdf'>MySpace, Inc. v. The Globe.com, Inc.</a>.<br /><br />Significantly, the court finds that:<br /><ol><li> MySpace is an "internet service provider" within the meaning of CAN-SPAM, and therefore has a private cause of action;</li><br /><li> Messages sent through MySpace messaging system are "electronic mail"; and </li><br /><li>Setting up e-mails under "false pretenses" is sufficient under "false and misleading header information" requirement.</li></ol><br /><br />Hat tip: <a href='http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/06/may_2007_quick.htm'>Eric Goldman</a>.<br /><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-41136832856844967042007-05-31T13:36:00.001-07:002007-05-31T13:36:25.104-07:00If you're selling games in New York...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... you risk being put in jail for life. Under a proposed New York law, it would be a felony to dissemintate violent and indecent video games to minors: <a href='http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/05/3-games-and-youve-got-25-to-life.html'>3 Games and You've Got 25 to Life</a><br /><br /><blockquote>While the law does give some leeway for the sentencing court, it theoretically allows a judge to put someone away for life for selling a copy of, say, Gears of War to a 16 year old who looks 18. Yes, selling a game could come with a life sentence under the new law.</blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm... yikes!</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-23322959034802727252007-05-31T13:01:00.001-07:002007-05-31T13:01:50.892-07:00WARF responds to stem cell reexam...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... by saying, paraphrasing, of course, "uh, you're wrong. Mouse stuff is not human stuff."<br /><br />You can read the whole 113 page response <a href='http://www.warf.org/uploads/media/WARF_Response_to_PTO_Office_Action_without_exhibits.pdf'>here.</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-5386618314441920552007-05-30T15:10:00.001-07:002007-05-30T15:10:07.616-07:00New bill = new standards for IT in healthcare?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>I haven't reviewed the proposed rules, but it seems so: <a href='http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3958'>Federal bill would set healthcare IT standards | WTN</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Asserting that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has failed to advance President Bush's goal of widespread electronic medical record adoption, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., has introduced a bill that would require a federal technology agency to accelerate the integration of healthcare information technology.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-63073436331557023382007-05-24T05:57:00.001-07:002007-05-24T05:57:21.826-07:00CAN-SPAM has few private remedies...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... or at least that's what Western District of Washington seems to imply: <a href='http://www.spamnotes.com/files/31236-29497/Order_on_Summary_Judgment.pdf'>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.</a>.<br /><br />The court held that even if a private entity can qualify as an "internet access service" (something the court calls "ambiguous), that entity needs to provide some evidence as to actual harm to "bandwidth, hardware, Internet connectivity, network integrity, overhead costs, fees, staffing, or equipment costs" or other "financial hardships" beyond mere inconvenience.<br /><br /><a href='http://spamnotes.com/2007/05/22/last-weeks-canspam-ruling.aspx'>Hat tip spam notes</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-81673649503583261352007-05-21T07:58:00.001-07:002007-05-21T07:58:20.456-07:00Disclosing a public URL prompts non-lawyer nasty-gram...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... stating that a copy of a blog disclosing the URL <a href='http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/05/14/12/47/56'>has been turned over to the lawyers.</a><br /><br />I can only imagine that the lawyer will probably not have a clue. Though, if he did, he'd probably give the client a really weird look.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-22983417608208561492007-05-19T06:49:00.001-07:002007-05-19T06:49:38.662-07:00Can spyware makers sue...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... anti-spyware companies? <a href='http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/18/zango-sues-antispyware-vendor_1.html'>Zango seems to think so</a>.<br></br><br></br>Without having seen the complaint, the two "obvious" causes of action might be:<br></br><ul><li>DMCA</li><li>Tortious Interference</li></ul>Of course, the defenses are probably better.<br></br></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-35713407080232584922007-05-16T15:26:00.001-07:002007-05-16T15:26:04.421-07:00Can structured text...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... preclude immunity under the Communications Decency Act? The <a href='http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/870C17829A420BDA882572DC0051EC26/$file/0456916.pdf?openelement'>Ninth Circuit</a> (quickly becoming the CDA clearinghouse circuit) seems to think so.<br /><blockquote>As we previously explained, an entity cannot qualify for CDA immunity when it is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [the] information” at issue. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), (f)(3); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031. Roommate is “responsible” for these questionnaires because it “creat[ed] or develop[ed]” the forms and answer choices. As a result, Roommate is a content provider of these questionnaires and does not qualify for CDA immunity for their publication.</blockquote><br /><br />In this case, the structured text was in the form of pre-defined content that a user selects in response to a questionnaire. Roommate.com created the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about living preferences that referred to things like sex and sexual orientation. Arguably, those characteristics are not appropriate criteria under the Fair Housing Act (not an expert, nor do I really know anything about the law).<br /><br />Too harsh? Maybe. Right decision? Probably.<br /><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-81322793592088308012007-05-16T14:43:00.001-07:002007-05-16T14:43:08.293-07:00Can you actually "delete" online predators?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>MySpace.com's security officer seems to think so, <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/05/16/myspace.sex.offenders.ap/index.html'>MySpace won't turn over names of sex offenders</a>: <blockquote>"Everybody needs to get together and delete online predators," Nigam said, adding that MySpace supports state and federal legislation requiring sex offenders to register e-mail addresses. "The attorneys general's concerns and our concerns are exactly the same."</blockquote><br /><br />To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of MySpace.com's <a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html'>Electronic Communications Privacy Act</a> argument. Seems a bit frivilous, perhaps I'll have to look at it a bit more, but it doesn't seem that they AG's are asking for intercepted information.<br /><br />What is probably true, however, is that they don't have to turn over records without a subpoena, and they may be using this as a reason not to do so. I may have to look at Myspace's terms of use as well.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-7388308118729897912007-05-16T14:36:00.001-07:002007-05-16T14:36:54.077-07:00Did KSR open the gates for many high-profile...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... demands for a new trial? <a href='http://www.patenthawk.com/blog_docs/070514_Microsoft_new_trial_v_Lucent.pdf'>Microsoft seems to think so.</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-80608886402393570352007-05-16T09:48:00.001-07:002007-05-16T09:48:41.034-07:00A "rainbow" of trouble...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... heh.<br /><br /><a href='http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/15/skittles.gone.ap/index.html'>Man charged with stealing $250,000 worth of Skittles - CNN.com</a> <br></br> <blockquote>A man caught removing tires from a truck has been charged with stealing the tractor-trailer containing $250,000 worth of Skittles, police said.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-7589849468700289032007-05-15T11:22:00.001-07:002007-05-15T11:22:40.449-07:00Porn is fair use as Open Record...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... so says the Wisconsin Court of Appeals requiring that porn caught up in a school-teachers' firing is an <a href='http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29079'>open record</a>:<br /><blockquote>We hold that a person aggrieved by a request made under the Open Records Law has standing to raise a challenge that the requested materials are not "records" because they are copyrighted. We further hold that the language of the statute, when viewed in light of the "fair use" exception to copyright infringement, applies so that the CD and the memo are "records" within the statutory definition of Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2)</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-35157666454929548482007-05-13T09:51:00.001-07:002007-05-13T09:51:56.295-07:00Malkin + EFF + UMG + YouTUBE = DMCA fight<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>What do you get when you mix one crazy rightwing pundit, an online rights organization, a music company and YouTube?&nbsp; One gigantic copyright mess mess: <a href='http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/11/youtube-caught-in-malkin-eff-umg-crossfire'>YouTube Caught In Malkin, EFF, UMG Crossfire:</a><br /><blockquote>Between Malkin and UMG is a hard enough spot to be in, but add the EFF into the melee and you've got yourself a first class nightmare. The EFF called UMG's actions an "improper attempt to silence her online criticism of one of its artists."<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Hat tip: <a href='http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/'>The Trademark blog</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-44390391329128260642007-05-11T07:32:00.001-07:002007-05-11T07:32:08.468-07:00DMCA violation for NOT using a DRM system...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... huh? <a href='http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/05/10/afx3708595.html'>Apple, Microsoft threatened with possible digital copyright lawsuit - Forbes.com</a> <br></br> <blockquote>MRT and Bluebeat said the failure to use an available copyright protection solution contravenes the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the manufacture of any product or technology designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or protects the rights of copyright owners.<br /><br />They said a failure to comply with the cease and desist order could result in in a federal court injunction and/or the imposition of statutory damages of 200-2,500 usd per product distributed or sold.</blockquote><br /><br />If there were ever a lawsuit that should see lawyers sanctioned, it would be this on.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-57909807171229423432007-05-09T12:24:00.001-07:002007-05-09T12:24:19.568-07:00Internet jurisidiction...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... in <a href='http://blog.bretttrout.com/2007/05/internet-jurisdiction-win-battle-win.html'>EBay cases</a>, a primer.<br /><br /><blockquote>Most people believe the law is pretty clear on Internet jurisdiction. That is simply not the case. The variety of Internet related disputes expands far faster than legislators could ever react. Judges are often left, therefore, applying bricks and motor jurisdictional principles to Internet disputes.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-91858212874119905132007-05-07T11:47:00.001-07:002007-05-07T11:47:58.668-07:00The problem with the RIAA and RICO...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... is that it's going to be hard to, among other things, show that a file-sharer has an expectation of privacy. So says, an <a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070506-riaa-extortion-why-the-only-rico-they-fear-is-suave.html'>Ars techica</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-54905847057324696902007-05-01T15:30:00.001-07:002007-05-01T15:30:02.906-07:00KSR fallout...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... in the Vonage case: <a href='http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=2007-05-01T205923Z_01_WEN7433_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-VONAGE-VERIZON-DC.XML'>Vonage asks for retrial</a>: <br /><blockquote>Internet phone company Vonage Holdings Corp. (VG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Tuesday it is seeking a retrial of a key patent infringement case against the company in light of a landmark patent ruling by the Supreme Court on Monday.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4101672325414582690.post-36926606012886431612007-05-01T11:32:00.001-07:002007-05-01T11:32:15.268-07:00Google's Viacom response's...<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>... money quote:<br /><br /><blockquote>Viacom's complaint in this action challenges the careful balance established by Congress when it enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA balances the rights of copyright holders and the need to protect the internet as an important new form of<br />communication. By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for internet<br />communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people<br />legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.<br />Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well above and beyond what the law requires.</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0