The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit waded into cyberspace late last month to set liability for Web site operators who put libelous information on the Internet in Batzel v. Smith.
September 07, 2003Jason Hoppin
Companies besieged by unwanted e-mail can only invoke the California's trespass-to-chattels law if the messages cause actual damage to equipment or property, the California Supreme Court held recently.
September 07, 2003Alexei OreskovicUnited Parcel Service of America (UPS) is tackling computer spam with a federal suit that seeks more than $1 million in damages from unnamed spammers.
September 07, 2003R. Robin McDonaldThe Internet has become mainstream by every commercial standard. Numerous legal difficulties await the unprepared human resource professionals. This is the second in a two part series that attempts to identify the top 10 things human resource professional need to know about Internet Law.
September 07, 2003Jonathan BickIf you do not mind paying for them, you can obtain copies of legal briefs over the Web from several sources. But where can you find free briefs?
September 07, 2003Robert J. AmbrogiCybergriping occurs when one party (a 'cybergriper') i) establishes a Web site (the 'complaint site' or 'attack site') dedicated to the publication of complaints, claims, criticism, or parody of or against another party (the 'target company'), and ii) registers the Web site under a domain name comprised of the target's trademark and a pejorative suffix, such as 'sucks.com,' 'crooks.com' or 'ripoff.com.' Not surprisingly, target companies have attempted to combat this relatively new form of asymmetrical cyberwarfare by bringing suit against cybergripers under various legal theories, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution and cybersquatting.
September 07, 2003Loren K. NewmanHighlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
September 05, 2003Compiled by Kathlyn Card-BecklesThe law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.
September 05, 2003Nathaniel DurranceOne of the most important issues faced by commercial purveyors of content on the Internet is how to protect their content. Much coffee and ink have been spilled over the question of how copyright, contract and tort law may be marshaled to maximize protection (or may be circumvented to minimize it).
September 05, 2003Colleen ChienThe Copyright Act and Patent Act were designed to protect originality and creativity. Courts, however, have generally been cautious about misusing or overextending the Lanham Act to areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright law. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001).
September 05, 2003Jonathan D. Reichman and Amy G. Feinsilver