Features

People surfing the Internet on their own computers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a grand jury subpoena is needed for law enforcement to obtain identifying information, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled late last month in a case of first impression.

Features

The filing of a complaint by a Pennsylvania lawyer against the operators of an online virtual world, and last year's decision by a Pennsylvania federal district court in that case, <i>Bragg v. Linden Research Inc.</i>, has generated a great deal of interest in the media and among lawyers, as well as in the virtual world community. The attention has gone well beyond that which the decision would have garnered if it had not involved a virtual world and virtual property, given that it simply found an arbitration clause in a terms-of-service agreement to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. It is clear, however, that the case reflects the growth of real-life litigation over virtual-world property. Undoubtedly, as participation in virtual worlds increases, real-life lawsuits will be growing in number, too.

Features

The efforts of the entertainment industry to stem the infringement of sound recordings and motion pictures on the Internet have been widely reported. More than 20,000 infringement actions have been commenced against individuals, mostly in connection with their use of peer-to-peer ('P2P') services to share recordings with other P2P users. The legal basis for these actions is often misunderstood, however, by commentators ' and sometimes even by the courts. This article discusses several recent P2P cases that deal directly with a central element of most P2P cases, namely the allegation that users violate the plaintiffs' distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. '106 whenever they place a digital recording or video in a 'share' folder that other P2P users can access.

Features

Aaron and Christine Boring say they enjoyed the, well, quiet life in the countryside outside Pittsburgh ' until Google showed up in the driveway. The couple is suing the Mountain View, CA, search giant for invading its privacy by snapping a photo of the Boring house for Google Street View, a map feature that allows users to see pictures of streets. It caused the Borings 'mental suffering and diminished value of their property,' according to the complaint filed in Pennsylvania state court. They're seeking at least $25,000 in damages.

The U.S. Supreme Court created a bit of a problem when it ruled that commercial speech is entitled to limited First Amendment protection, but failed to clearly identify what commercial speech is. So, it often comes down to this: If a business elects to engage in a debate on important social issues, its principals ' and counsel ' have no way of knowing the level of constitutional protection that speech will receive. This issue is becoming especially important to owners of blogs.

Based on recent court decisions and pending PTO rule changes, one may question the viability and value of U.S. patents. While some court decisions have altered the playing field somewhat, the strength of the U.S. patent and legal systems remains quite strong.

Organizations should evaluate their innovation processes in light of the evolving meaning of obviousness.

Features

In <i>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</i>, an antitrust case, the U.S. Supreme Court put to rest the five-decade-old pleading standard from <i>Conley v. Gibson</i> that 'a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.'