Slashdot Mirror

theodp writes "NCR has settled the lawsuit it brought against Yahoo! last December for infringing on 10 patents related to e-commerce technology. The case, discussed earlier on Slashdot, was especially significant because it involved broad patents covering basic Internet functions. As part of the settlement, Yahoo! is now licensing the technology. Terms of the settlement and licensing agreement were not disclosed."

clonebarkins writes "Law.com is running an article by Evan P. Schultz suggesting that the Eldred decision (/. story) could mean bad news for our favorite four-letter law: the DMCA."

clonebarkins writes "Law.com is running an article by Evan P. Schultz suggesting that the Eldred decision (/. story) could mean bad news for our favorite four-letter law: the DMCA."

DeAshcroft writes "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lottie E. Wilkins has ordered MonsterHut, its CEO Todd Pelow and CTO Gary Hartl to stop behaving badly. The New York Post has a story on the ruling. The suit, brought by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in May 2002, alleges that MonsterHut sent over 500 million messages, fraudulently claiming that they were opt-in, and ignored at least 750,000 requests by consumers to be taken off their lists. Newsday also has coverage. The AG has an official release on the case. Penalty hearing is scheduled for Feb 11, 2003."

scubacuda writes "Law.com's article, The Biggest IP Cases of 2002, has a nice summary of some of the intellectual property cases that have caught our attention this last year. Of particular interest to slashdotters: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (regarding Arriba's visual search engine), Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (regarding a gene patent being invalid because it did not meet the written description requirement), an Illinois federal court injunction against Aimster, United States v. Elcom Ltd a/k/a Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. , and Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Welles (regarding Playmate of the Year, Terri Welles, using Playboy's marks and metatags on her website)."

scubacuda writes "Law.com's article, The Biggest IP Cases of 2002, has a nice summary of some of the intellectual property cases that have caught our attention this last year. Of particular interest to slashdotters: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (regarding Arriba's visual search engine), Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (regarding a gene patent being invalid because it did not meet the written description requirement), an Illinois federal court injunction against Aimster, United States v. Elcom Ltd a/k/a Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. , and Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Welles (regarding Playmate of the Year, Terri Welles, using Playboy's marks and metatags on her website)."

scubacuda writes "According to Law.com, Robert Gumson, a blind man who uses a program that converts website content into speech, is suing Southwest Airlines (with the help of Miami Beach, FL-based Access Now) for its website being incompatible with his screen-reader program. The case has been filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act under the untested legal theory that ADA provisions on the accessibility of public accommodations to the disabled apply to Internet Web sites just as they do to brick-and-mortar facilities like movie theaters and department stores. There have been previous lawsuits alleging that the ADA applies to the Internet, but all have settled without a ruling on the merits: 1999 the National Federation of the Blind sued AOL alleging its service was inaccessible to blind users (AOL agreed to make its sites compatible with screen reader technology); over the past two years, Access Now has sued Barnes & Noble and Claire's Stores for maintaining Web sites that allegedly violated the ADA (both settled)."

Anonymous Coward writes "Alcatel USA Inc. filed a lawsuit, and won, in a bid to claim proprietary rights for a software idea of one of its former employees, Evan Brown. Evan signed a invention disclosure agreement with his former employers but what makes this case unusual is that Evan never wrote anything down with regards to his idea, meaning that Alcatel seems to be claiming rights to an idea in his head. Does this mean your thoughts may belong to your company? Maybe...." This story has been kicking around for a few days but this is the first legal analysis I've seen of it. Watch what you sign! J adds: see also recent TR story and our 1999 story.

andrewdm writes "The Business Software Alliance has a new partner: the grand muftis at Al Azhar in Cairo. The New York Law Journal has an article explaining the new holy(?) alliance between the BSA and the highest religious authorities in the Egyptian Sunni Islam sect. The clerics issued a fatwa (holy edict) against piracy, saying it is "the worst type of theft and prohibited by Islam." What's next? The Pope denouncing mp3's as mortal sins?" The worst type of theft, indeed.

scubacuda writes: "Are FAQs copywritable? Judge Barbara B. Crabb, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in the case Mist-On Systems, Inc. v. Gilley's European Tan Spa, didn't think so."

anewsome writes "Yale Law School students conducted a mock Eldred v. Ashcroft trial, heard before judges Hugh Bownes on the First Circuit, John Walker Jr. on the Second, and Morris Arnold on the Eighth. Surprise: Eldred Won. Check out the full story here. In related news, here's a terrific Recorder piece on the debate over the IP section of ABA taking sides in the case."

Several people have written in about an interesting decision handed down by the California Supreme Court. Nike, which has been repeatedly criticized for sweatshop practices in its contractors' factories, has made a variety of statements to the press contradicting these allegations (although in general, third-party examinations find them to be substantiated). A lawsuit was filed, charging the company with deceptive advertising under California law, and Nike was accused of trying to greenwash its image. Nike claimed that the First Amendment prevented it from being sued for these statements. The first courts to look at the case agreed with Nike; the California Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs and allowed the suit to proceed. (See also Nike's press release.) There are all sorts of interesting issues raised concerning corporate and commercial speech, the protection it has/ought to have, etc. There's a law.com article that goes a little more into the legal issues.

Slashback tonight with more on Lord of the Rings (The Two Towers, specifically), various ongoing court battles, the true color of the universe, and more. Read on for the details.

All I'm certain of is my true love's hair. CompaniaHill writes: "As previously reported on /., first they though it was turquoise. Then they found an error in their early calculations, and announced it was really beige. But doubts lingered, and color experts pointed out that an objective color as viewed from the theoretical blackness of space would appear different when viewed on Earth in typical daylight. So adjustments were made, and calculations were revised and rechecked by color scientists Michael Brill of McClendon Automation Inc. and Mark Fairchild of the Munsell Color Science Laboratories. And now, at last, Ivan Baldry and Karl Glazebrook, astronomers at Johns Hopkins University, using spectral data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, have announced the final result: The universe is decidedly salmon. Really."

The milestones are getting closer together. Dare Obasanjo writes: "Xindice (http://xml.apache.org/xindice), the Apache native XML database has finally reached version 1.0. Xindice used to be called dbXML and was mentioned in my article on XML and databases."

Three From the Courts TheFrood writes: "It looks as though the battle between Blizzard and bnetd (as reported in previous stories here(1), here(2), and here(3))is heating up. Vivendi has sent another letter to the EFF, which has wasted no time responding."

ElitusPrime writes with an update in the strange case of Ken Hamidi, the Intel employee whose mass-mail to Intel employees brought charges of trespassing. Now the California Supreme Court may take another look at the case. Says ElitusPrime: "If this guy is put in jail, I can think of more then a few other spammers that need to go up the creek with him..."

In a very different case, pagan26 writes: "It seem that DMCA will have its day in court. With ElmcoSoft."

Well, at least you can trust their word, right? Masem writes: "According to MSNBC, the developers of the spyware program WinWhatWhere will no longer have their install program trample the bits of anti-spyware programs, after word broke that this behavior was occurring. However, no word has been made by a similar spyware program developed by SpectreSoft that does similar damage."

I will fork out to see this, happily. Pingsmoth writes "It looks like the faithful fans of Peter Jackson and Tolkien will be able to catch a glimpse of The Two Towers this Saturday. Lordoftherings.net is reporting, through a video of Peter Jackson, that a preview (read: not a trailer) of The Two Towers will be shown in theatres this Saturday, presumably attached to The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe at the end? At any rate, it looks like I'll be seeing the film at least seven times now, and it's a good thing I got a morning shift tomorrow." For a more colorful description of this 4-minute tease, check out Ain't it Cool News' version.

larsoncc writes: "According to this article on CNET, a Senate Bill will likely force the issue of adding copy protection to hardware. They are giving the industry 12 to 18 months to come up with a voluntary solution to the "problem" of copies, and if not... Well, you just have to read the article. Insane." Wired also has a story. The IP list published two interesting documents: an account of the hearing by an attendee, and a letter from Intel published immediately after the hearing. Read the letter carefully - note that the disagreement between the tech industry and Hollywood is not over whether or not copy protection will be implemented into every electronic device, but only whether or not this should be written into law. If the SSSCA isn't passed, Intel (and others) get a lot of leverage over Hollywood. If it is, Intel's leverage disappears. But since both sides want to build copy protection into everything, they only differ over the process, we're in trouble either way.

An anonymous reader submits: "According to an article from law.com, yesterday's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S.) will have far-reaching effects on web publishing. From the article: '... The court found that reproducing photographs to create thumbnail images is a fair use of the material, but displaying full-sized images violates the copyright owner's exclusive right to publicly display his works....But the court found that displaying the full-sized images through linking and framing was not transformative and harmed the market for the original photographs.' One lawyer is quoted as saying, 'It's basically going to do away with linking or framing without permission.'"

substatica writes: "Law.com is running this article on the content industry working to convince congress that not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction", as put by Michael Eisner. We've been able to copy VHS for over a decade and they're still making movies. Does anyone really think that the movie industry will be eradicated due to copyright infringment?" Consideration of the SSSCA has been put off a few months, but it will be back. The Register covers one part of the split between content and hardware with this story about Philips getting more uppity about their Compact Disc logo, a follow-up to this story. The Reuters article that the Register refers to is here.

substatica writes: "Law.com is running this article on the content industry working to convince congress that not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction", as put by Michael Eisner. We've been able to copy VHS for over a decade and they're still making movies. Does anyone really think that the movie industry will be eradicated due to copyright infringment?" Consideration of the SSSCA has been put off a few months, but it will be back. The Register covers one part of the split between content and hardware with this story about Philips getting more uppity about their Compact Disc logo, a follow-up to this story. The Reuters article that the Register refers to is here.

lam0r writes: "I can't find a newslink for this, but CNN had on their news ticker that 37 nations, including the United States, had signed a treaty designed to make tracking and prosecuting 'hackers' easier and more efficient. What exactly is defined as 'hacker' is something I haven't been able to find out. ... Why was the public not made aware of this until it was done? Anyone know more about this item than me?" This is the Cybercrime Treaty, which was signed today by 30 nations and which we have posted about before. This analysis is probably the best so far - it might be a little out of date since the treaty has been revised once or twice since it was written, but the basics are still the same.

Diesel Dave writes: "There's an article on Law.com about Dmitry Sklyarov's new Lawyer. Renowned San Francisco defense attorney John Keker has agreed to represent the Russian programmer pro bono. Keker is quoted as saying: "I think he is being unjustly accused and that's the kind of case I like to do." and "[The Government is] always welcome to dismiss the case, but we didn't come in to make a plea deal." This gives me the impression he has full intensions of fighting this to the end. Good."

isomeme writes: "A California court has ruled that posting another person's libelous text online is not a separate act of libel. See this article for the full scoop. One interesting twist is that the decision was justified in part by provisions of the much-denigrated Communications Decency Act (CDA). I'm not sure if this ruling is a good thing or not; as the opposing attorney pointed out, it seems to provide a loophole for libel, protecting online speech more than other varieties."

opus writes "There's an interesting series of articles at law.com on the current situation in patent law, which has become "a money-minting machine for a few patent holders". Includes an article on Peter Detkin, counsel at Intel, who spends much of his time battling patent infringement claims against Intel, and who coined the term "patent troll". Apparently it's not just the geeks who are unhappy with the current state of affairs in patent law."

opus writes "There's an interesting series of articles at law.com on the current situation in patent law, which has become "a money-minting machine for a few patent holders". Includes an article on Peter Detkin, counsel at Intel, who spends much of his time battling patent infringement claims against Intel, and who coined the term "patent troll". Apparently it's not just the geeks who are unhappy with the current state of affairs in patent law."

An Anonymous Coward writes: "The U.S. District Court ruled on Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 00 Civ. 4871, saying that a license that users don't even have to see before downloading online free software isn't binding. Calling these "browse-warp" licenses (as opposed to click-wrap), the court found that since usersdidn't have to look at them, users didn't assent to the terms. Netscape's use of SmartDownload, practice of harvesting information through SmartDownload with out an effective license is now suspect as since there is no license, and no assent, there is no agreement. See a report of the case at Law.com Or try to find the rulings at Find Law."

Saber Taylor writes: "Lots of good .signature material in this analysis: 'The treaty imposes criminal liability on businesses if they fail to supervise users who commit potentially illegal acts.', 'If you cable together two computers, you could be forced to comply with investigations that originated in Sofia or Riga.', etc." Maybe this is what's meant by "entangling alliances." Worth reading, wherever you fall on the paranoia scale.

dbrower writes: "A recent decision reported by law.com shows your email isn't protected hardly at all by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA). In this case, an employer was free to root around archives of old mail to nail an employee. The court ruled that the protections of the ECPA may apply to the mail spool and the transmission, but not backup copies of your 'Sent' mail. Well, maybe not all that astonishing -- relying on law to protect you from the BOFH at work was never going to work, was it? The message seems to be: send potentially incriminating mail from accounts not under your boss's control." Other courts have come to much the same conclusion. Once your email stops moving, it isn't a violation of Federal law to read it (although other laws could be violated in the process of gaining access to it).

TechLawyer writes "For those of us interested in the use of the DMCA, and the tactics utilized by copyright enforcement specialists under the DMCA, Law.com ran an interesting article today on Dave Powell and Copyright Control Services. Read about how he plans to knock out Napster & how he shuts down warez d00dz from .com to .ru." There are some fascinating and ugly quotes in here about how this guy goes after targets - a combination of harassment and threats against their service providers, admitted illegal actions, etc. Meanwhile, this LA Times story describes even more insidious technologies apparently designed for use in transparent proxies - censorware for copyrighted materials.

mojotoad writes: "Efforts have currently be redoubled to push UCITA through up to 10 states by the end of the year, according to an article on law.com. Apparently, the bill has been "languishing" in state legistlatures. My favorite quote: 'There is a natural euphoria whenever you draft a bill like UCITA,' says Daniel Duncan, executive director of the Digital Commerce Coalition. 'We thought, "We'll take it to the states and they'll see the wisdom of our work."' Time to redouble your effort to thwart this beast. Contact your congressman."

mojotoad writes: "Efforts have currently be redoubled to push UCITA through up to 10 states by the end of the year, according to an article on law.com. Apparently, the bill has been "languishing" in state legistlatures. My favorite quote: 'There is a natural euphoria whenever you draft a bill like UCITA,' says Daniel Duncan, executive director of the Digital Commerce Coalition. 'We thought, "We'll take it to the states and they'll see the wisdom of our work."' Time to redouble your effort to thwart this beast. Contact your congressman."

petard writes: "Law.com ran this article on how Adobe is suing MacNN over an article which appeared on AppleInsider with detailed information on and screenshots of Photoshop 6, currently in (non-public) beta. Could this be bad news for other rumor sites, and possibly even sites like Slashdot? Hope MacNN wins ..."

petard writes: "Law.com ran this article on how Adobe is suing MacNN over an article which appeared on AppleInsider with detailed information on and screenshots of Photoshop 6, currently in (non-public) beta. Could this be bad news for other rumor sites, and possibly even sites like Slashdot? Hope MacNN wins ..."