Features

Companies and their employees at times face the difficult issue of protecting themselves from cybersmears by anonymous Internet users. One of the most problematic issues is the tension between identifying what is protected speech under the First Amendment, and the standard that must be met in order to obtain the identity of an anonymous poster who has used the Internet to spread damaging statements.

Do Internet postings constitute 'printed publications' that are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. '102(b)? Most practitioners and examiners behave as though this were a settled question. It is not. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed this issue in <i>SRI International v. Internet Security Systems and Symantec</i>. After much discussion of the principle of 'public accessibility,' the majority of the panel determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a paper that SRI posted on its Internet server was a printed publication.

Consider this the super-powers edition of Web Watch. Read on to find out how you can build memory stronger than an elephant's, have the vision to search across the Web and develop the ability to communicate from the afterlife.

The vast majority of online games do not have a distinct win or lose scenario; instead they are designed to allow for gamers to level-up their Avatars in the virtual society by earning virtual currency and/or developing skills that make the character more desirable. Property, both real and personal, can be purchased or created in the virtual world and used by the Avatars. The current trend of allowing player-created content has led more players to consider the virtual property that they have created or earned to be their real world property as well.

Who's doing what; who's moving where.

The latest news from the franchising world.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

In <i>Schlotzsky's Ltd. v. Sterling Purchasing and National Dist-ribution Co., Inc. ("Sterling")</i>, 502 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit reinforced the tough standard for proving an antitrust tying claim against a franchisor and clarified the broad scope of the Lanham Act's unfair competition provision. The decision is important for franchisors defending claims of market power.