When it comes to sending promotional messages to wireless devices, such as through e-mail or short message service ("SMS"), there is more than one reason to be confused. First, there are two different federal laws that apply to messages that end up on wireless devices such as cell phones. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Market Act (the "CAN-SPAM Act"), 15 U.S.C. §7701 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. §1037, applies if the address that is used to send the message consists of a username and a domain name. (Commonly, if the wireless device is a cell phone, the username would be the number of the cell phone and the domain name would be the domain name of the wireless carrier. If the wireless device is of some other type, the address may be formulated differently.) The applicable rule is: If the address has a domain name in it, the CAN-SPAM Act's wireless e-mail regulations apply.
- January 04, 2006By: Kristen J. Mathews
Until recently, U.S. software companies comfortably operated under the assumption that selling software that was copied from a "golden master" CD outside of the United States, and which was sold only to customers outside of the United States, did not infringe U.S. patents. Recent developments in the law have destroyed that comfort and made clear that infringement liability may very well lie for exactly those types of foreign sales.
January 04, 2006Douglas E. Lumish and Sonal N. MehtaEvery year is filled with new opportunity and as Henry Ford said: "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you are right." So, take a step back as a management team and look at what's happening in the legal market.
January 04, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |A complete listing of cases covered in this issue.
January 04, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Discussion of recent cases.
January 04, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Federal statutes provide for forfeiture of real property used in conjunction with a variety of criminal activity. Although the primary focus of federal civil forfeiture statutes has been on drug-related offenses, the reach of these statutes now extends to a variety of other crimes. A recent Southern District case, however, raises an issue not explicitly resolved by the forfeiture statutes: when is the property of a corporate owner subject to forfeiture?
January 04, 2006Stewart E. SterkAnalysis of recent key rulings.
January 04, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In-depth analysis of a recent ruling.
January 04, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance Notice 2005-86 on the interaction of the 2.5-month grace period for a health flexible spending arrangement (health FSA) (established earlier this year by Notice 2005-42 and an individual's eligibility to contribute to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
January 04, 2006Ruth Wimer