Fallout from SCO’s litigation campaign (see Nov. 13, etc.): two lawyers advise companies to crack down on employees’ use of open-source software to avoid possible future liability. (Yusuf Cassim and Michael R. Overly, “The Real Price of Linux Software”, Law.com, Jan. 28).
Posts Tagged ‘tech through 2008’
Alleged spammer sues spam-complainer
“A man is being sued by a New Hampshire company for labeling it a spammer and reporting its actions to ISPs, after two years of allegedly receiving unsolicited emails from it. Atriks alleges that Jay Stuler caused financial damage to the firm, resulting in a number of lost contracts. The suit also says that Stuler made defamatory statements against the company, calling it ‘a notorious spam gang,’ and CEO Brian Haberstroh a ‘criminal,’ which the suit denies.” (“Company Sues over Spam Claims”, TheWhir/Article Central, Jan. 20; Jo Best, “Spammed man sued by alleged spammer wants cash”, Silicon.com/The Spam Report, Jan. 18)(via KipEsquire who got it from Privacy Spot).
“Marvel Battles Role Players”
City of Heroes, an entry in the “massively multiplayer online game” category pioneered by Sony’s Everquest, allows its nearly 200,000 participants to “bring the world of comic books alive” by inventing characters and selecting names, costumes and powers for them; the characters then interact with other players’ characters. Some users choose to imitate established comic-book heroes in creating their characters. In November, comic-book publisher Marvel Entertainment sued the site’s proprietor. According to Marvel’s complaint (PDF, courtesy Electronic Frontier Foundation), “Defendants’ Creation Engine facilitates and, indeed, encourages players to create and utilize heroes that are nearly identical in name, appearance and characteristics to characters belonging to Marvel” and the site is responsible for “directly, contributorily and vicariously infringing upon Marvel copyrights and trademarks”. Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, a veteran of online free-speech fights, counters: “Asking City of Heroes to police their users to ensure that they don’t replicate Marvel characters is like asking a school to police its students to make sure none of them show up for Halloween in a homemade Spider-Man costume.” (Daniel Terdiman, Wired News, Nov. 16; Fred von Lohmann, “Et tu, Marvel?”, Law.com, Dec. 3 (contemplating a future offense of “pretending without a license”)).
Criticizing copyright
“Copyright is a trial lawyer’s dream — a regulatory program enforced by private lawsuits where the plaintiffs have all the advantages, from injury-free damages awards to liability doctrines that extract damages from anyone who was in the neighborhood when an infringement occurred. …Recently, David Boies, famous for his representation of Al Gore, signed a rich contingent-fee deal to pursue a claim that Linux open-source software violates his client’s copyright. Last month, he launched test cases against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. If he prevails, businesses all across the country could find themselves paying big damages simply for having purchased Linux servers. It’s asbestos litigation for the Internet age.” (Stewart Baker, “Exclusionary Rules” (review of Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture), Wall Street Journal, Mar. 26, reprinted at Steptoe & Johnson site)(more on technology and IP law). P.S.: David G. Post of Temple reviews Lessig’s book in the November Reason, and is in turn reviewed (before the fact) by Frank Gilbert at Slinkard Review.
Streaming content on the web? Pay up
Acacia Research Corporation, “an obscure but well-financed company in Newport Beach, Calif.,” has assembled a portfolio of broadly worded patents that it claims entitle it to licensing fees from many if not all entities that provide streaming audio and video over the Web. It has sent out demand letters to a wide variety of recipients including news organizations and colleges both large and small. “Johns Hopkins University received a letter last year from Acacia, which asked for what would amount to 2 percent of the university’s revenues.” In June it sued nine cable and satellite companies.
Critics say Acacia has no interest in manufacturing things, just in asserting legal claims. “Acacia appears to be the first publicly traded company whose sole business is the licensing of patents. ‘They are not a technology company; they are just a company full of lawyers,’ said Dan Rayburn, executive vice president of StreamingMedia.com, a Web site and industry association. ‘They acquire patents and then sue.'” Defenders, including some not employed by Acacia, say its patents appear solid and that it legitimately purchased enforcement rights from original inventors. “Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, the nation’s highest patent court, upheld a ruling that [television manufacturers Sony, Sharp and Toshiba] do not infringe the V-chip patent and thus owe Acacia no royalties. The companies that have already paid Acacia $26 million in V-chip royalties, however, will receive no refund.” (Teresa Riordan, “Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern”, New York Times, Aug. 16; Daniel Terdiman, “EFF Publishes Patent Hit List”, Wired News, Jun. 30). Update: Feb. 18, 2007 (Acacia has prospered through licensing deals, though it hasn’t yet faced its toughest courtroom challenges).
Update: Microsoft fee-ing frenzy
“A group of national law firms that failed to recover significant damages in federal antitrust suits against Microsoft is demanding a cut of the $15.5 million in fees awarded to plaintiffs lawyers in a Florida class action suit against the software giant.” Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll and thirty other firms that prosecuted a mostly unsuccessful federal class action say the lawyers in the Florida case used information they developed and, although they never signed an agreement to share fees, should cough up a quantum meruit. “The federal lawyers were spectacularly unsuccessful and only got one small class certified,” said Daryl Libow of Sullivan & Cromwell, who represents Microsoft. “They weren’t satisfied with the fees, so they started roaming the country to see if they could get more.” (Laurie Cunningham, “Lawyers in U.S. Microsoft Case Want Cut of Fees in Miami Suit”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jul. 23). More on Microsoft cases: Jul. 9, Mar. 31 and links from there.
Microsoft’s Minnesota settlement
The software company will pay as much as $59 million in attorneys’ fees and a face value of $174.5 million in vouchers for purchasers, although many or most will apparently never get redeemed. A Microsoft spokesman said the company believed it had a solid defense but “settled to avoid the potential of a jury verdict that favored the plaintiffs, and to avoid disruption at the company. ‘How much is a week’s worth of Bill Gates’ time to shareholders? A lot,’ he said,” referring to the expected appearance of the company chief at trial. (Gregg Aamot, “Microsoft to Pay Up to $241 Million in Minnesota Class Action”, AP/Law.com, Jul. 2). More on MS settlements: Mar. 31 and links from there.
The incomparable James Lileks (Jul. 7) describes the settlement much more entertainingly than we have done above (“Microsoft once again promised to hand over its wallet if the kicking stopped, and agreed to remain rolled in a fetal position until the money is counted. …. When it came to distribute the organs of the corpse the lawyers got the liver, spleen, lungs and most of the brain; the consumers got some regulatory glands, some teeth and a selection of minor toes.”). Then he goes on to notice that it contains a remarkable provision:
they need higher participation rates, since it looks bad when you advocate on behalf of an Inflamed Public that turns out to be utterly indifferent to the supposed offense. So the state has come up with a novel means of informing citizens that Microsoft owes them money. It was buried at the end of the story in the local paper last week.
The state will subpoena local computer resellers to learn who bought PCs.
Maybe it?s just me, but: imagine the outcry if the Justice Department decided it wanted a database of computer ownership in America. Who had what. Oh no you don?t would be the general reaction, even if people couldn?t quite explain why they didn’t like the idea. It smacks of typewriter-registration laws in totalitarian states, even though we all know no one will kick down the door and demand to know where you put that 386 you bought in ’92. But this is the mindset of the well-intentioned government lawyer: gee, people might not claim their rebates. How about we use the power of the state to force private businesses to turn over customer lists so we can mail informational material to computer owners? It?s for their own good.
Union Pacific: pay us for logo use on model trains
Squandering consumer goodwill dept.: “For decades, model-train makers have routinely decorated their train sets with the logos of train companies past and present, without paying for the right to do so. But now, Union Pacific wants a piece of the action, and it’s seeking a 3 percent royalty from companies that stick the UP logo on model trains.” (James P. Miller, “Model train fans steaming mad at UP”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 27). More: “Community goodwill” would doubtless be a more accurate phrase than “consumer goodwill” in the above, and might have made blogger SlitheryD (Jun. 30) happier. See also Feb. 4, 2005 (planes, ships, etc.)
EFF Ten-Most Wanted Patents List
The Electronic Frontier Foundation announces a contest to find and publicize–and challenge–illegitimate patents:
In order to qualify for our ten most-wanted list, a patent must be software or Internet-related and there must be a good reason to suspect that the patent claims are invalid. We’re especially interested in patents that target tools of free expression, such as streaming media, blogging tools, and voice over IP (VoIP) technology. Most importantly, the patent-holder must be aggressively enforcing its patent and suing (or threatening to sue) alleged infringers. We’re particularly interested in cases where the patent-holder is trying to force small businesses, individuals, nonprofits, and consumers to pay licensing fees. Deadline to enter is June 23.
“EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz, who heads the project, said he can’t wait to see what the contest turns up. ‘We have seen illegitimate patents asserted on such simple technologies as one-click online shopping, video streaming, and paying with credit cards online. When individuals and small businesses are faced with million-dollar legal demands, they have no choice but to capitulate and pay license fees. We aim to change that.'” (EFF press release, Jun. 10) (via Crouch).
A 1-in-a-googol claim
In the late 1930s, Edward Kasner was asked to come up with the name for a large number; as legend has it, he asked his nine-year old nephew, who said “googol,” and Kasner’s 1940 book “Mathematics and the Imagination” popularized the term for the number 1 followed by a hundred zeroes. Over a half century later, a variation of that word was used to name a popular search engine, which you may have heard is going public in an e billion dollar offering.
Now Kasner’s great-niece, Peri Fleisher, is going public herself, complaining that her family hasn’t been compensated for Google’s choice of a name, and “exploring” the possibility of legal action. Fleisher has said that she would settle for being allowed to participate as an “insider” in the IPO; the interviewer, either out of ignorance or charity, doesn’t point out that because the Google IPO is a “Dutch auction,” Fleisher already has the right to participate as an “insider” (presuming she means a “friends and family offering”), which is merely the right to buy shares in an IPO at the issuing price. (Gerald P. Merrell, “Have your Google people talk to my ‘googol’ people”, Baltimore Sun, May 16).