Our Incisive Media affiliate, New Jersey Law Journal, published the following commentary on the New Jersey legislature's attempt to react to the "sexting" issue by making Web site operators liable for what users write.
Every day, courts must address questions that from a technical perspective simply make no sense. One of the most basic is: "Where is the Internet?" From its earliest origins, the Internet was designed with a distributed structure; it was designed to make certain the answer to that question would be: "Who cares?" Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the law lacks that kind of flexibility. It requires an answer.
The numbers on U.S. e-commerce activity for the second quarter are in ' and they're good, indicating per se that the economy may be making a break from the recession.
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Sometimes, innovation brings benefits; other times, as the saying goes, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." That paradoxical dictum is evident when computer and Internet technology, and e-commerce, converge. With stasis and change in mind, consider the nearly ubiquitous issue and practice of Internet accessibility of images amassed by government organizations, commercial entities and individuals.
Information management is a proximate and pressing business concern. Organizations must ensure that electronic data is routinely backed up, safely stored and recoverable in the event of a disruption or disaster. At the same time, they must also make sure that records are preserved and expired in conjunction with retention schedules, and are searchable and discoverable, to enable efficient response to litigation and investigatory matters should problems arise. Indeed, the preparation and use of electronic discovery is accelerating and attenuating these needs.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
As obvious as this distaste for lawsuits may be to anyone who has ever been deposed, it nonetheless is often critical for businesses, and particularly technology firms, not only to be prepared to go (metaphorically) to war in the battlefield of the courtroom, but to actually take that step.
The TTAB has opined on the meaning of a bona fide intent to use a trademark in connection with a Section 1b intent to use trademark application. None of these opinions, however, has delineated a clear bright-line test defining bona fide intent to use. In April 2009, the TTAB, ruling in Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann, established the meaning in the context of a trademark application based on foreign registration rights under Section 44, rather than on use in interstate U.S. commerce.
To what extent does re-examination equip an infringer who loses in court with the additional opportunity, aside from an appeal, to escape liability?
