This is an interesting take on lawyers blogging about their cases.
As a small firm, I often rely on free legal sites to research state statutes. From a public policy standpoint, it seems absurd that the State of Oregon would not want its statutes to be widely available. From a copyright infringement standpoint, I wonder whether statutes become facts — this is the law — rather than the expression of an idea such that they would not be afforded copyright protection.
Lighthearted Friday news:
Here is an interesting article regarding whether a court can compel a person to give law enforcement authorities a password to file that might implicate the person in a crime. This issue has been percolating for a while, but this might just be a case where it gets litigated to some resolution.
Here is a nice, basic explanation of the importance of creating and maintaing robust access to the Internet and wireless communications:
Check out this article in the WSJ regarding President Bush’s cyber “security” plan.
This plan raises a number of serious issues regarding civil liberties. I am hopeful that the Senate will kill the FISA bill this week and set a precedent for giving civil liberties a consideration in national security debates.
This looks to be a test of the scope of protection under the DMCA’s safe harbor provision. Is the defendant, SeeqPod, in the clear because it does not actually host copyrighted music, but merely finds music on the web and points the user to it? That appears to be the letter of the law. But query how a notice and takedown would work in a situation where a website is not actually hosting copyrighted material. Does it block the search engine from “finding” such material? Has SeeqPod found a loophole to exploit in the DMCA or is it being too cute for its own good? We’ll let you know what the court say . . .
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Check out this new case on fashion copyrights filed by Diane von Furstenberg against my new favorite store, Target.
As discussed here previously, there is an ongoing debate about the appropriate scope of copyright protection for fashion, as well as disagreement over whether copyright protection would even be beneficial to fashion designers.
The more important question to me is how can the dress design still be considered “fashion” when it went out of style 25 years ago??
Social Science Research Network
Very interesting article on searches and seizures of electronic equipment, such as an iPhone or other PDA in a person’s possession during a traffic stop or arrest.
Is it reasonable to expect that information stored on a PDA is private?
Also, looking at this issue from the perspective of a lawyer whose PDA includes attorney-client privileged material, can I protect that privilege if I am stopped for not wearing a seatbelt (or in Chicago and many other places for talking on my phone while driving).
It is a scary thought to me and another example of how small our realm of privacy is becoming. In that same vein, will Congress will grant immunity to telecoms for spying on behalf of the government? Daily Kos
Some basic advice on how to minimize the risk of being sued for developing a game — don’t use a name similar to another; don’t use packaging similar to another; don’t use text or artwork from an existing game; and, check to see whether the game is patented. In other words: develop your own game!
William Patry has a blog post up about a recent Eighth Circuit case regarding IP rights in — essentially — a hall pass.
The court based its decision on the ever-so-rational rationale that the hall pass was not copyrightable material (and that the time out method was not patentable), specifically that the “procedures” were not copyrightable because they were an idea (as opposed to the expression of the idea) and that the functional language of the hall pass did not infringe on the asserted copyright.
Check out the comments for further discussion on the work for hire doctrine, which the court did not reach in its opinion. My good friend Colette Vogele references the teacher exception to the work for hire doctrine and an article as to the current viability of that doctrine.
v.
*I judged Julie Hilden in a Parliamentary debate a lifetime ago. She won then, but I have to side with Prof. Tushnet on this one.
Here is an interesting post on the Egyptian Goddess patent case, where one of the questions involves the use of Markman hearings in design patent cases:
I expect that the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (where I serve on the litigation committee) may weigh in on the merits of this question. Check back for more.
Here is an interesting book introduction:
The question of where copyright protections arise has been addressed by the Supreme Court, but that hasn’t stopped a broad range of arguments and analysis that seem to run contrary to the Supreme Court’s rejection of the natural rights theory of copyright protection.
I am very interested in an in-depth discussion of the current copyright landscape and how arguments being made by copyright owners may run contrary to the theoretical underpinnings of copyright protection, arguments which have been raised in court filings, but are limited by the facts of the cases and the adversarial process. It seems to me that the author recognizes, as I believe, that many (large, corporate) copyright holders arguments for broad copyright protection don’t correlate to the statutorily granted rights.
Interesting post about the lawyers involved in the Google copyright infringement case. The comments were more interesting to me than the post itself. While all lawyers certainly have their strengths and weaknesses, I question whether it makes sense to replace an elite trial lawyer for someone who might be better at summary judgment/appeal. Based on Bartlit Beck’s reputation, I wonder if this signals an attempt by Google to try to work this case out before further substantive judicial rulings. From my perspective, I think the issues raised in the Google litigation need to be resolved by a court, whether in this case or some other. How better to resolve this case than providing the judge with exceptional legal analysis on behalf of high-powered companies.