The last few years have seen a seismic change in electronic discovery, driven largely by concerns about electronic records, with which e-commerce ventures deal in growing multitude. And, as logic would dictate, recent independent surveys of corporate general counsel confirm that companies have been taking steps to formalize their preservation practices when litigation or enforcement activity becomes reasonably likely.
But a 2003 survey conducted by the e-consulting firm Cohasset Associates found, for instance, that 46% of the companies the firm surveyed had not established any formal system for preserving records, and the litigation-hold policies of 65% did not address electronic documents. Not the wisest approach to sound business practice in these days of proliferation of e-commerce, e-records and, in the realm of corporate and business law practice, e-discovery.
- November 29, 2005Robert D. Owen
Last month, Grokster apparently gave up. The P2P filing-sharing service Nov. 7 filed documents with a Los Angeles federal court reporting that it had reached a settlement in its lengthy legal case with the nation's largest record companies, motion picture studios and music publishers, as represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
This decision leads many experts to believe that a distributor of P2P technology with a legitimate intent not to infringe others' rights would not be liable for a third-party infringing use of the technology. But despite that perhaps being the case, the Court failed to create a bright-line test to help identify a "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" which, as Justice Breyer stated in his concurring opinion and as discussed in this article, could have a chilling effect on others creating or advancing file-swapping and other possibly legitimate technologies. Future litigations will necessarily turn on a case-by-case basis not as to the nature of the technology but potentially on the distributors' business plans.November 29, 2005Sean F. KaneOpen-source software is a boon to computer programmers: by sharing the source code for freely released software, anyone (with the skill) can modify it for his or her, or that person's business', own needs. And, as attorneys and business people are aware, the no-longer nascent and quickly growing movement for open-source software has this business-boon tool finding its way into many companies' programming departments.
It's also finding its way into their lawyers' offices, because the licensing requirements of most open-source software are creating new concerns, and new work, for lawyers serving the tech industry.November 29, 2005Marie-Anne HogarthEverything in this issue, in an easy-to-follow format.
November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent rulings you need to know.
November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Analysis of high-profile cases.
November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In-depth analysis of recent cases.
November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Last month's issue analyzed the Court of Appeals' determination in Thornton v. Baron, invalidating the illusory tenancies. This month, we focus on the court's computation of rent due.
November 29, 2005Darryl M. VernonDismissal of jury's insider trading guilty verdict upheld: A divided Second Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a guilty verdict against a computer company…
November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |