law

1:48 am on November 29, 2010 · copyright (81), dmca (6), google (23), law (47), viacom (1), webcast (110), youtube (3)

Video: Why Viacom v. YouTube Matters (Besides the $1 Billion)

by

The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. New York Chapter Panel: Why Viacom v. YouTube Matters (Besides the $1 Billion) at the Princeton Club NYC on Nov 18 2010. While YouTube won a summary judgement in this case, it is under appeal. The panel was tasked, rather than making appellate cases, with discussing the implications of the decision. Nevertheless much of the meat of the arguments was chewed at this lunchtime event.

Panel: Cliff Sloan (Partner, Skadden Arps), Daniel Blackman (Co-founder, Howcast, and formerly of Google), Michael Kwun (Of Counsel, Keker & Van Nest), Thomas Sydnor (Director of the Center for the Study of Digital Property at The Progress & Freedom Foundation), Moderated by Professor James Grimmelmann (New York Law School)


download: iPod | mp3

12:47 pm on June 28, 2010 · bilski (4), law (47), patent (10), scotus (3)

Supreme Court on Bilski – no but whatever..

by

The Supreme Court opinion in re:Bilski is in.  With typical ambivalence it upheld the federal court’s decision while rejecting it’s reasoning, replacing the machine-or-transformation test with essentially no test at all. The Court rejected the patent just because it was an “abstract idea”. From the syllabus:

The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101. Although that test may be a useful and important clue or investigative tool, it is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process” under §101. In holding to the contrary, the Federal Circuit violated two principles of statutory interpretation: Courts “‘should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed,’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 182, and, “[u]nless otherwise defined, ‘words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’” ibid. The Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “process” that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.
. . .
Because petitioners’ patent application can be rejected under the Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas, the Court need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. Nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing the Federal Circuit’s past interpretations of §101.

So this would seem to leave the whole question of software patents as wide open as ever.

Opinion is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

10:34 pm on April 20, 2010 · copyright (81), database (2), event (22), law (47), open (20)

Open Source Database Licensing Panel – NYC 4/21

by

The Institute for Information Law & Policy and the International
Intellectual Property Society present: Open Source Database Licensing

Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Location: NY Law School 185 West Broadway NYC Room W201
RSVP: Naomi Allen at naomi.allen*at*nyls.edu. Refreshments will be served.

Database owners are increasingly seeking ways to make their data
available so that others can contribute to and build on their work. This
“open data” movement emphasizes the importance of sharing data for both
scientific development and humanitarian response. The willingness of
database owners to make their data available for re-use depends on their
ability to impose conditions on that release, which requires
consideration of the varying levels of copyright protection afforded to
databases across jurisdictions.

Please join us for a panel presentation focusing on the challenges
associated with balancing the advantages of “open data” with the need
for database owners to impose conditions on release. The speakers will
address the current state of copyright protection afforded to databases
and strategies for encouraging database sharing.

Panelists:
Janelle C. Bonanno, Graduate Research Fellow, New York Law School
Christopher Cotter 3L, New York Law School
Rachel DeLetto, Graduate Research Fellow, New York Law School
Cynthia Grady 2L, New York Law School
Chris Holmes, The Open Planning Project; Chair, Project Steering Committee, GeoServer
Molly Beutz Land, Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School
James Vasile, Software Freedom Law Center; Board Member, Open Source Matters

9:21 pm on April 14, 2010 · law (47), privacy (69)

Digital Due Process Coalition demands reform of ePrivacy statutes

by

Digital Due Process The Digital Due Process Coalition brings to gether such unlikely bedfellows as CDT, Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL and the ACLU, along with some lawyers that ISOC-NY webcast viewers will be well familiar with like Susan Crawford, James Grimmelmann, Frank Pasquale, & David Post, united in the purpose of advocating reform of The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.

The ECPA is the statute under which the federal government can snoop into your email, and enforce co-operation in its efforts from ISPs. The move to cloud computing has nullified many of the protections in the act, and providers are facing increasing demands for access from law enforcement. The DDPC is demanding an overhaul of the statute, and a return to due process = warrants before they hand over users missives.

9:31 pm on April 13, 2010 · app (6), event (22), law (47), NYU (24)

Mobile App Legal Concerns Panel – New York Law School 4/20

by
Ever since the Apple launched the App Store on the iPhone, people have been crazy about mobile apps. As a result, apps are now widely available on the Android, Blackberry, and many other mobile phone platforms. A developer must consider issues concerning contract law, intellectual property protection, corporate law and user privacy when creating a new app. This panel will discuss the legal concerns that every mobile app developer should consider before bringing a new app to market.
Moderator: Jonathan Lutzky, Esq., Masur Law
Room: W201 6-8pm, Event begins at 6:30, Tuesday 4/20
Panelists: Simon Buckingham,  Mobile Streams Appitalism
Dan Cohen, DaDa Mobile and Playme.com
Hugh Dornbush, omgicu
Kunal Gupta, Polar Mobile
RSVP to Brian Daitzman: [email protected]
6:25 am on April 2, 2010 · email (2), law (47), privacy (69)

Attorney/Client Privilege Trumps Company E-Mail Surveillance

by

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday gave workers in New Jersey an assurance of privacy in using workplace computers to talk with their lawyers, ruling a company’s e-mail-monitoring policy yields to the attorney-client privilege.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the unanimous court in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency Inc., A-16-09, said a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit against her employer had a reasonable expectation that e-mails to and from her attorney on her personal Yahoo account would be private, although transmitted via a company-owned laptop.

While finding the employer’s policy ambiguous in its reach, Rabner said that “even a more clearly written company manual — that is, a policy that banned all personal computer use and provided unambiguous notice that an employer could retrieve and read an employee’s attorney-client communications, if accessed on a personal, password-protected e-mail account using the company’s computer system — would not be enforceable.”

Via Privilege Trumps Company E-Mail Surveillance.

6:11 pm on March 6, 2010 · CRB (1), law (47), Live365 (1), USG (40), webcasting (4)

Live365 suit to oust Copyright Royalty Board lives, just!

by

Kevin Goldberg reports on the ongoing case in which webcaster Live365 is challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), and with it the recently confirmed statutory webcasting rates.

Last year an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh opened the door. Live 365 jumped on it, using an arcane argument over the method of appointment of the CRB. They filed for a preliminary injunction.

At a recent hearing Judge Walton rejected that request. He did not throw out the case, however, despite his opinion that there was a “substantial” chance of it’s failure.

Kevin notes that it is likely that, if the case proceeds, it could eventually end up again in the hands of the more sympathetic Judge Kavanaugh.

There is no “bright line” to follow in such cases with the Supreme Court having ultimately decided similar conflicts on a case-by-case basis.

Department of the Inferiors? Copyright Royalty Board Judges Are OK With That. : CommLawBlog.