I wonder how this case would have come out against Yahoo! where the paid advertisers' ads appear at the beginning of the search results (albeit with "sponsor results" faintly printed above). The court could have found that it gives consumers more of an impression that Geico was somehow involved in those sites which could cause consumer confusion. Google is a harder search engine for Geico to take on because Google puts its advertisers links on the side of the results so it is clear to people that they are paid advertiser links.
Nevertheless, it seems like the right result to me. It is difficult to imagine there is any consumer confusion when using a web search engine like Google. You enter any word, even a brand name, and you expect there to be at least a few hundred totally irrelevant results. In Google's case, you expect there to be irrelevant results including insurance companies unrelated to Geico.
Although the consensus seems to be that Wei was practicing the art in Viola before Microsoft, Eolas had a good argument to keep out the evidence. Eolas argued (and it sounds like the Judge accepted) that although Wei may have developed the technology, later patented by Microsoft, before Microsoft, Wei abandoned it. If you don't "practice the art", e.g., make it public,exploit it somehow, it will not prevent a later inventor from patenting the technology. My guess is that this is the argument the judge accepted. Eolas also argued that Wei's computer wasn't hooked up to the internet, but I don't think that would be as persuasive.
Yes, your toaster is subject to FCC regulations. Under the Communications Act of 1934 all interstate communication by toasters using wire or radio or transmission of energy by radio are subject to FCC regulations.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided . . .
More importantly, if your toaster emits radio frequency radiation that interferes with radio communications it is subject to FCC regulations. Also, if your toaster is electronic, it is subject to FCC regulations.
The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications; and (2) establishing minimum performance standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy. Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.
I agree with Anonymous Coward's assessment. CALEA is not relevant to the case. The broadband providers only brought up CALEA as a way to show that the FCC's position that broadband is subject to CALEA is inconsistent with the FCC's finding that it is not subject to the Communications Act.
Earthlink, in its opposition, claimed that the 9th Circuit ruling was consistent with the FCC, DOJ, FBI, and DEA's contention that broadband is subject to CALEA as a "telecommunications service" under that act. (Earthlink Brief at 10).
In its response, the government pointed out that a finding that broadband providers are subject to CALEA but not to the Communications Act is entirely consistent because of the broader definition of "telecommunications service" under CALEA. (Reply at 9).
I do not believe that the FCC has conclusively established that broadband is subject to CALEA. It filed its notice of rulemaking in August 2004. There may still be time for public comment if anyone out there wants to get in their 2c on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevertheless, it seems like the right result to me. It is difficult to imagine there is any consumer confusion when using a web search engine like Google. You enter any word, even a brand name, and you expect there to be at least a few hundred totally irrelevant results. In Google's case, you expect there to be irrelevant results including insurance companies unrelated to Geico.
Although the consensus seems to be that Wei was practicing the art in Viola before Microsoft, Eolas had a good argument to keep out the evidence. Eolas argued (and it sounds like the Judge accepted) that although Wei may have developed the technology, later patented by Microsoft, before Microsoft, Wei abandoned it. If you don't "practice the art", e.g., make it public,exploit it somehow, it will not prevent a later inventor from patenting the technology. My guess is that this is the argument the judge accepted. Eolas also argued that Wei's computer wasn't hooked up to the internet, but I don't think that would be as persuasive.
According to The Deal, talks may be successful and The Company may announce an agreement to purchase IBM's PC business as early as today.
Yes, your toaster is subject to FCC regulations. Under the Communications Act of 1934 all interstate communication by toasters using wire or radio or transmission of energy by radio are subject to FCC regulations.
Section 152More importantly, if your toaster emits radio frequency radiation that interferes with radio communications it is subject to FCC regulations. Also, if your toaster is electronic, it is subject to FCC regulations.
Section 302aEarthlink, in its opposition, claimed that the 9th Circuit ruling was consistent with the FCC, DOJ, FBI, and DEA's contention that broadband is subject to CALEA as a "telecommunications service" under that act. (Earthlink Brief at 10).
In its response, the government pointed out that a finding that broadband providers are subject to CALEA but not to the Communications Act is entirely consistent because of the broader definition of "telecommunications service" under CALEA. (Reply at 9).
I do not believe that the FCC has conclusively established that broadband is subject to CALEA. It filed its notice of rulemaking in August 2004. There may still be time for public comment if anyone out there wants to get in their 2c on this issue.