Words can be indecent...

.... so says a New York court in a case involving only the transcripts of ab internet chat.

Read the opinion here.

Funniest legitimate Exhibit ever...

... filed by IBM in the IBM v. SCO case: "Selected Copyright Principles..

IBM uses it thusly:

Moreover, there is no question that preparing a defense to SCO’s allegations would require a line-by-line analysis of the code at issue, even if that code is not alleged to have been literally copied, as illustrated by the cases IBM provided to Judge Wells (and previously provided to this Court) (see Addendum A) and by SCO’s own cases.

Hattip: Groklaw.

Dick Butkus as...

... intellectual property licensing plaintiff?

I should see if I can dig up the complaint to see what it says about the license granted.

Word to the wise, if you're licensing something valuable, like your name or persona, run it by a lawyer first.

Open WiFi probably not a defense...

The dubious defense of an open wireless network as grounds to avoid criminal prosecution just got more dubious: Child porn case shows that an open WiFi network is no defense

The merits of leaving your wireless access point (WAP) open have been discussed and debated at length, especially when it comes to law enforcement. There is a growing belief that file sharers can protect themselves against lawsuits by keeping their wireless access points open. The problem is, it won't necessarily.

The point of clarification here is that: it's still probable cause to go to the place of the open connection.

Read the opinion.

Use of archive.org print-out may be hearsay or lacking foundation...

.... Internet 'Wayback Machine' Printouts Held:

Printouts of Web pages purporting to indicate how a Web page appeared at a prior point in time, supplied by the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" service, are inadmissible without authenticating testimony from someone familiar with how the pages were created, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held March 26 (Novak v. Petswarehouse.com, E.D.N.Y., No. 06-cv-1901, 3/26/07).

Good-faith in pay-per-click advertising...

... who'd have thunk it? Apparently the Southern District of New York.

Because this tactic would allow Findwhat to increase its profits solely at its discretion and with no benefit to Payday, it is
plausible that it could be found to “destroy[] or injur[e]” Payday’s rights under the contract. Dalton, 663 N.E.2d at 291. It is furthermore likely that a reasonable advertiser entering into such a contract would expect that, whatever the external risks of unproductive “clicks,” it would not be subjected to unbounded increases in its prices at the hands of its promisor or at its promisor’s direction.

Open records law requires...

... village to provide a company with the database of property assessments, not just a pdf, WIREdata Inc. v. Village of Sussex.