 |
Martindale-Hubbell
AV Rating |
 |
CyberLaw.Info
|
|
|
|
CyberLaw.Info Recent Articles |
|
|
|
|
CyberLaw.Info News by Topic |
|
|
|
|
InfoCenter CyberLaw.Info |
Your IP: 38.107.191.105
Browser Info:
CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html)
Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
|
CyberLaw.Info
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Principal May Be Sued Individually for Chilling Student's 1st Amendment Rights |
| on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 12:00 AM Posted by: admin |
Pembroke Pines, FL. In Katherine Evans v. Peter Bayer, US District Court for the Southern District of FL (2008), Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled against Peter Bayer's, Principal of Pembroke Pines Charter High School, motion to dismiss the case against him individually for suspending Katherine Evans, a senior, who set up a Facebook page to complain about her teacher. Magistrate Garber agreed that Evans' First Amendment rights were chilled and Bayer had personal exposure to suit. Read the complaint here. |
|
 CyberLaw.Info |
| Toronto Radio Podcast on Cyberbullying |
| on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 12:00 AM Posted by: admin |
Toronto Radio NewsTalk 1010 host Jamie Hofing interviewed Elliot Zimmerman on Dec. 16, 2009 regarding whether students have a right to be mean online. A recent LA Times article reported that a Beverly Hills school suspended an 8th grade student who posted a video on YouTube with several other students calling yet another student "spoiled," a "brat," and a "slut." Read the article here.
The suspended student took the case to federal court, saying her free speech rights had been violated. See J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, Case No. 08-cv-03824, California, U.S. District Court (2009). Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson sided with her. "To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption
of the school's activities, runs afoul of the law," wrote Judge Wilson in a 60 page opinion. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Embedded Metadata Subject to Discovery |
| on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 09:40 AM Posted by: admin |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, October 29, 2009, in Lake vs. City of Phoenix, CV-09-0036-PR that:
Arizona law provides that “[p]ublic records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for metadata in the electronic version of a public record. We today hold that if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.
Click here to read the full opinion. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Kaleidescape Ruling Overturned |
| on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:37 AM Posted by: admin |
On August 12, 2009, just one day after Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled against RealNetworks, Inc. and RealNetWorks Home Entertainment, Inc. ("RealNetworks") granting DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. ("DVD CCA") and several motion picture studios a preliminary injunction that prevents RealNetworks from selling or licensing its RealDVD software [ RealNetworks, Inc. et al. v. DVD CCA et al., Case No. C 08-04548 MHP (N.D. Ca. 2008)], the California Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District (Santa Clara) overturned a trial court's finding that Kaleidescape, Inc.'s DVD copy product did not violate its DVD CCA contract. Click here to see the Order in DVD CCA v. Kaleidescape, Inc., Case No. H031631 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV031829). The appellate court remanded the case for trial.
See related article at www.CyberLaw.Info:Judge Patel Gets Real |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Judge Patel Gets Real |
| on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 09:35 AM Posted by: admin |
On August 11, 2009, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled against RealNetworks, Inc. and RealNetWorks Home Entertainment, Inc. ("RealNetworks") granting DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. ("DVD CCA") and several motion picture studios a preliminary injunction that prevents RealNetworks from selling or licensing its RealDVD software. See RealNetworks, Inc. et al. v. DVD CCA et al., Case No. C 08-04548 MHP (N.D. Ca. 2008). Click here to read the 58 page Order and Memorandum. The court found that RealNetworks' DVD copy software, which decrypts copy protection, violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and RealNetworks' contract with the DVD CCA. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| No Attorneys Fees For Dismissal Of Copyright Case |
| on Sunday, August 09, 2009 - 09:34 AM Posted by: admin |
 In Cadkin v. Loose, 569 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not confer prevailing party status for a claim brought under the Copyright Act. Accordingly, Defendant was not entitled to attorneys' fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act which provides that the court may, in its discretion, award full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the prevailing party in a claim arising under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Court overruled Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 121 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1941) in light of Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, because “prevailing party” status turns on whether there has been a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.” In Oscar v. Alaska Dep’t of Educ. & Early Dev., 541 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit recently held that a dismissal without prejudice does not alter the legal relationship of the parties in a similar fee shifting statute. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Thomas Must Pay RIAA $1.92M |
| on Friday, June 19, 2009 - 09:22 AM Posted by: admin |
In the retrial of RIAA v. Thomas, the Defendant was found guilty of willful infringement of copyright in the amount of $1.92M by a jury in a Minnesota federal court. This exceeded the first judgment by $1.7M. Obviously, two times is not a charm. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Intel v. Psion Suit for Netbook Trademark Settled |
| on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 09:20 AM Posted by: admin |
On June 1, 2009, Psion stated that it and Intel had "settled the trademark cancellation and infringement litigation brought in the Northern District of California relating to the 'Netbook' trademark registration. The litigation has been settled through an amicable agreement under which Psion will voluntarily withdraw all of its trademark registrations for 'Netbook.' Neither party accepted any liability. In light of this amicable agreement, Psion has agreed to waive all its rights against third parties in respect of past, current or future use of the 'Netbook' term."
See our prior article at: http://cyberlaw.info/Article86.htm.
|
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Google Adwords Violate Trademark Owner's Rights |
| on Saturday, April 04, 2009 - 12:00 AM Posted by: admin |
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Rescuecom v. Google 06-4881-cv ruled on April 3, 2009, that a trademark owner can sue Google for trademark infringement for selling its mark as a keyword in the AdWords program. Read the decision here. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
| Intel Files Dec Action for Use of the Mark Netbook |
| on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:00 AM Posted by: admin |
On February 25, 2009, Intel filed suit in the Northern District of California for a declaratory judgment against Psion, purported owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2404976 issued on November 21, 2000 for the mark Netbook for use in connection with laptop computers. Intel contends "that the term 'netbook' is a widely used generic term that describes a class of affordable computing devices, much like the term 'notebook' or 'ultra-mobile PC.'" Adding fuel to Intel's fire is that Psion did not file suit against Intel and others even though it was aware this mark has been used generically by them for the past few years. Additionally, Intel alleges that Psion has not used the mark since the year 2000 because their product wasn't successful and was discontinued. Psion did sue Google, which now disallows others to use their search engine advertising services for the term as a result of the said suit. Intel claims it is now suffering damages because of Google's position. |
|
CyberLaw.Info |
|
|
|
|
Printer Friendly Page
