http://www.pcworld.com/article/182333/china_rules_microsoft_violated_intellectual_property_rights.html
This article details a recent case that took place in a Chinese court. The plantiff, Zhongyi, claimed to have rights over the Chinese character fonts that are used by Microsoft, which are in their operating systems. The claim is that Microsoft sought permission for licensing these fonts in Windows 95, which Zhongyi agreed to. However, after this was over, Microsoft went on to use this same font set in Windows 98 and Windows XP, and the plantiff is aiming to stop production of these products which contain his illegally used font. It is agreed that this is more of an issue over the scope of the licensing agreement than anything.
The Chinese courts ruled that Microsoft was guilty of copyright infringement, and ordered them to stop producing versions of the operating systems with these specific fonts.
Friday, November 20, 2009
ACTA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111300852_2.html?hpid=news-col-blog&sid=ST2009111300859
This article entitled "Copyright Overreach Goes on World Tour" is about a recent trade agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will potentially help globalize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been in play for over 10 years, but is proving to be more controversial every day, as certain restrictions that are a part of it seem to downplay common sense. One example is that you cannot put a DVD purchase on your ipod because of this act, even though you are the owner of it. The countries involved in ACTA are the United States, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and parts of the European Union.
This article points out that this agreement would help to cement the user-hostile DMCA in place in the US, and give a possibility for a rather frightening future of intellectual property ownership and the laws surrounding it.
This article entitled "Copyright Overreach Goes on World Tour" is about a recent trade agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will potentially help globalize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been in play for over 10 years, but is proving to be more controversial every day, as certain restrictions that are a part of it seem to downplay common sense. One example is that you cannot put a DVD purchase on your ipod because of this act, even though you are the owner of it. The countries involved in ACTA are the United States, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and parts of the European Union.
This article points out that this agreement would help to cement the user-hostile DMCA in place in the US, and give a possibility for a rather frightening future of intellectual property ownership and the laws surrounding it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The law school blues
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/10/23/law-graduates-settle-suit/
This case is between two law school students, Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, studying at Yale, and a group of posters who defamed them on the internet. A bunch of photos of these two law students leaked on the internet and were eventually posted on a law school forum, which their lawyers claim to be the most prostigious law school forum on the internet that is frequented by both law students and law firms looking to hire students. Both girls claim to have lost job and internship opportunities because of the things posted, and fear that it will affect their future career.
I think that it depends on how these pictures found their way to the forum that would determine whether it is defamation. If the girls had posted them in a public place, such as facebook or myspace, then it would have been reposting, and if anything, they had defamed themselves. Despite this, the judge sided with the two girls, even though it was noted that this case was subject to the "Streisand Effect", where a relatively minor instance on the internet tries to get covered up by the embarrassed party through legal means, and as a result, it erupts into the news and on all sorts of websites, making it more public and embarrassing in the end.
This case is between two law school students, Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, studying at Yale, and a group of posters who defamed them on the internet. A bunch of photos of these two law students leaked on the internet and were eventually posted on a law school forum, which their lawyers claim to be the most prostigious law school forum on the internet that is frequented by both law students and law firms looking to hire students. Both girls claim to have lost job and internship opportunities because of the things posted, and fear that it will affect their future career.
I think that it depends on how these pictures found their way to the forum that would determine whether it is defamation. If the girls had posted them in a public place, such as facebook or myspace, then it would have been reposting, and if anything, they had defamed themselves. Despite this, the judge sided with the two girls, even though it was noted that this case was subject to the "Streisand Effect", where a relatively minor instance on the internet tries to get covered up by the embarrassed party through legal means, and as a result, it erupts into the news and on all sorts of websites, making it more public and embarrassing in the end.
Swartz v. Doe
http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/swartz_v_doe_tennessee_ruling.html
This article is actually an evaluation of the case of Swartz v. Doe, taking it apart and evaluating how the judge got to his conclusion, so it is particularly helpful for me, a poor interactive media student trying to work her way through various case laws. The case was between Donald and Terry Swartz, who are business owners that make their living through purchasing real estate and converting them into drug rehabilitation centers. The defendent, who wished to remain anonymous and went by the name "John Doe" in the court records, hosted a blog (on blogspot, nevertheless), which made negative claim about the Swartz's business dealings and personal lives, claiming them to be arsons, and a bunch of other negative things. The Swartz's ordered google to reveal who this anonymous blogger was, but he refused to give up his identity.
There are two things at play here, defamation and privacy. John Doe caused defamation that could hurt the Swartz's business, but on the other hand, he might be entitled to remain anonymous because of his right to privacy. In the end, the judge decided that the proper way of going about things would have been to notify John Doe that his identity was wanted because of his post, give him reasonable time to respond, and if he wanted to deny it to give them a reason. Since google contacted him and gave him several months to respond, the judge ruled that his privacy rights had not been violated.
This article is actually an evaluation of the case of Swartz v. Doe, taking it apart and evaluating how the judge got to his conclusion, so it is particularly helpful for me, a poor interactive media student trying to work her way through various case laws. The case was between Donald and Terry Swartz, who are business owners that make their living through purchasing real estate and converting them into drug rehabilitation centers. The defendent, who wished to remain anonymous and went by the name "John Doe" in the court records, hosted a blog (on blogspot, nevertheless), which made negative claim about the Swartz's business dealings and personal lives, claiming them to be arsons, and a bunch of other negative things. The Swartz's ordered google to reveal who this anonymous blogger was, but he refused to give up his identity.
There are two things at play here, defamation and privacy. John Doe caused defamation that could hurt the Swartz's business, but on the other hand, he might be entitled to remain anonymous because of his right to privacy. In the end, the judge decided that the proper way of going about things would have been to notify John Doe that his identity was wanted because of his post, give him reasonable time to respond, and if he wanted to deny it to give them a reason. Since google contacted him and gave him several months to respond, the judge ruled that his privacy rights had not been violated.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Battle of the I's: Ixia v. Ineoquest
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ineoquest-wins-trade-secret-case,1013451.shtml
The company Ixia has brought on multiple lawsuits against Ineoquest involving multiple things, including trade secrets. In the most recent ruling, the court sided entirely with the defendant Ineoquest, and have asked for the court to order Ixia to pay for their fees.
One of the things Ixia was trying for ward to get Ineoquest to stop doing business with a slew of clients that they believed to be their own, and considered it a trade secret breach, but the court found this to be untrue.
The company Ixia has brought on multiple lawsuits against Ineoquest involving multiple things, including trade secrets. In the most recent ruling, the court sided entirely with the defendant Ineoquest, and have asked for the court to order Ixia to pay for their fees.
One of the things Ixia was trying for ward to get Ineoquest to stop doing business with a slew of clients that they believed to be their own, and considered it a trade secret breach, but the court found this to be untrue.
Apple and Psystar's trade secret agreement
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/apple-and-psystar-finally-agreeto-keep-trade-secrets-secret.ars
There has been a fierce battle between Apple and the company Psystar that resulted in a lawsuit over a computer that Psystar was distributing that Apple deemed to be a clone of their own. This article has nothing to do with that, however, and everything to do with how trade secrets are shared and handled.
They have agreed to define exactly what is meant by trade secret laws in this case. Any file labelled "Confidential" will be considered something that can be seen by attorney's and up to two employees in either company, and anything labelled "Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only" will limit it to being seen by only the attorney and court. This is a pretty vital step in a long and ongoing case.
It may seem a bit unnecessary, since it isn't really a case dealing with trade secrets, but the fact that they needed to specify how information is handled in court to prevent any trade secret infringement shows exactly how important these trade secrets are to companies.
There has been a fierce battle between Apple and the company Psystar that resulted in a lawsuit over a computer that Psystar was distributing that Apple deemed to be a clone of their own. This article has nothing to do with that, however, and everything to do with how trade secrets are shared and handled.
They have agreed to define exactly what is meant by trade secret laws in this case. Any file labelled "Confidential" will be considered something that can be seen by attorney's and up to two employees in either company, and anything labelled "Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only" will limit it to being seen by only the attorney and court. This is a pretty vital step in a long and ongoing case.
It may seem a bit unnecessary, since it isn't really a case dealing with trade secrets, but the fact that they needed to specify how information is handled in court to prevent any trade secret infringement shows exactly how important these trade secrets are to companies.
Friday, October 23, 2009
AAA cybersquatting case
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091022/NEWS02/310219845/-1/NEWS03
This news article also has to do with a company called AAA. However, this version of AAA is an auto club, as opposed to the AAA Apartment locating service that is in a dispute with First Call, as detailed in the post before this. It is important to note that this is completely legal within IP law, since they are not in the same field and therefore not competing with one another, it is perfectly legal for two companies to own the same set of letters and claim it as their own intellectual property.
On to the article: A man from Erie is being accused of cybersquatting for holding on to the domain name AAA.net, when the company AAA would like it to link to their own site, AAA.com. The case has been settled, and James Van Johns (The previous owner of AAA.net and nominee for coolest name of the year, as awarded by myself) has been forced by the courts to hand over the rights to the domain AAA.net, but hasn't been ordered to pay any extra money, since it was decided that his intent was not malicious.
This applies to what we have been learning in class because of the cybersquatting laws that we have learned about. Although the article doesn't specify what business or reason James Van Johns owned that applied to the AAA business, although it implied that he was simply using it as a way to make ad revenue from people who ended up there by mistake. If he had a legitimate business under that name, then it would have been a different issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
