“Two years after DirecTV launched a legal onslaught against thousands of alleged satellite television ‘pirates,’ a Florida resident who was sued by the company is now claiming malicious prosecution.” The company has filed numerous actions against persons it believes have been in possession of illegal signal piracy devices — famed non-murderer O.J. Simpson is one such defendant — but critics charge (see Jul. 24) that it is casting too broad a net. “The legal assault began after a series of raids on companies that sold decoders enabling viewers to steal DirecTV’s signal. The satellite television operator obtained the names of some 100,000 people in the raids from credit card receipts and other lists.” In the Florida case, Luc Senatus alleges that he was a victim of credit card theft and neither purchased nor received a signal decoder, but was sued by DirecTV anyway. (Matthew Haggman, Miami Daily Business Review, Mar. 26).(& letter to the editor, Oct. 31). Update: see also Crime and Federalism, Feb. 15, 2006 (court rules suits by DirecTV not a RICO violation).
Posts Tagged ‘tech through 2008’
Terrorism, data-collection, and dot-connecting
Yesterday’s New York Post ran my review of Jeffrey Rosen’s new book The Naked Crowd, on government surveillance, privacy, and the fight against terrorism, a book I wish I could have liked better than I did. (Walter Olson, “Privacy First”, New York Post, Apr. 18). As I explain, my reaction to some passages in the book was to “want to lock Rosen in a room with my Manhattan Institute colleague Heather Mac Donald”. The City Journal piece by Mac Donald being referenced is here.
“Dodgy Patents Rile Tech Industry”
Many techies are nervous if not aghast about the issuance of a number of patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in recent months, including one “awarded to security firm Network Associates that gives the company rights to technology that deletes ‘undesired data’ from a computer”, and “another that gives Amazon.com the right to charge other website operators for using browser cookies that store data structures”. (Amit Asaravala, Wired News, Apr. 5). Another controversial one: Frank Weyer and Troy Javaher of Beverly Hills were recently issued a patent for an Internet naming system. Earlier this year, they sued leading domain registrars Network Solutions and Register.com for alleged infringement of their patent. “The patent covers the method of assigning URLs and e-mail addresses of members of a group such that the “@” sign is the dot in the URL. For example, if a group used a so-called third-level URL, www.john.smith.com, the e-mail address would be john@smith.com.” (Marguerite Reardon, “Domain registrars sued over URL patent”, CNETNews.com, Jan. 15; “Nizza Group Sues Network Solutions and Register.com for Patent Infringement”, news.webhosting.info, Jan. 11). Weyer and Janaver’s Nizza Group issued a press release Jan. 8 about its success; its lawsuits have drawn much criticism in such places as The Register (Kieren McCarthy, “Patent lawyer puts claim to entire Internet”, Jan. 17; Geek.com (Jan. 20); Slashdot).
Get hacked, go to jail
Hacker and virus incursions could spell not only disruption and possible civil liability for companies whose computer systems are compromised, but also civil and even criminal penalties potentially including prison terms for the companies’ executives, it’s being warned. “Though health-care, banking and deceptive-business laws all create security obligations, a new accounting-reform law being phased in is likely to have the biggest impact. The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act holds executives liable for computer security by requiring them to pledge that companies’ ‘internal controls’ are adequate, and auditors are starting to include cybersecurity in that category, said Shannon Kellogg, director of government affairs at RSA Security.” (“Online security: who’s liable?”, Reuters/Wired News, Mar. 28). For more on hackee liability and related issues, see May 29, 2001; Jul. 12, Feb. 26-27, and Feb. 10-11, 2000.
“Patents out of control?”
PanIP, the firm that demands five-digit sums in licensing fees from small companies using e-commerce upon threat of vastly more expensive patent infringement litigation (see Feb. 4-5, 2003), gets coverage in USA Today as part of a larger story on the costs of questionable patents. (Paul Davidson, Jan. 13). A defense fund claims to have successfully moved the Patent Office for reexamination of the Lockwood e-commerce patents last summer; PanIP’s infringement lawsuit has been stayed in the interim.
Others, however, continue with the same strategy. At least three game designers have reported receiving a demand letter from a lawyer representing Sheldon Goldberg, who purports to have patent claims on, among other things, computer solitaire, on-line game rankings, and pop-up advertising. (A Shareware Life blog, Jan. 31; SCWatch.net, Jan. 24; LawGeek blog, Jan. 26; copy of demand letter).
Microsoft and MikeRoweSoft
Permission to link, sir?
In mid-2002, in the face of widespread criticism (and more than a little derision), National Public Radio dropped its policy of purporting to require webmasters to ask permission before linking to its website, npr.org. (Farhad Manjoo, “NPR Retreats, Link Stink Lingers”, Wired News, Jun. 28, 2002). We noticed the other day, however, that Forbes magazine, ordinarily one of the more sensible and web-literate media outfits, on its Reprints/Permissions page includes the following option: “Request permission to include a link to FORBES.com on your website.” Whoops, looks like we just may have violated that policy (more: Aug. 22, 2002; Dec. 11, 2001; etc.).
My crow’s offed
A 17-year-old “computer geek” in Victoria, B.C. named Mike Rowe thought it would be fun to name his website design company MikeRoweSoft. Then he heard from lawyers for the world’s largest computer company, informing him he was committing copyright infringement. “I didn’t think they would get all their high-priced lawyers to come after me,” Rowe said. (“Mike may be Rowe, but ‘soft’ is trouble”, AP/Seattle Times, Jan. 19; “Microsoft won’t go soft on Mike Rowe”, CP/London (Ont.) Free Press, Jan. 19). Update Jan. 27: parties settle dispute.
Chinese court orders virtual goods returned to gamer
A court in Beijing has ordered an online gaming company to return a player’s virtual goods that had been hacked and stolen. Li Hongchen had been playing the online game “Hongyue” (Red Moon) for two years when he discovered that an unknown miscreant had invaded his account and taken virtual money and weapons. The court told the game’s operator, Beijing Artic Ice Technology Development, to return the virtual goods to Hongchen; it has not yet ruled on his request for real-world US $1,200 in compensation. Gamers cannot recall another case in which a court has ordered the transfer of game-defined imaginary goods, but the Xinhua news agency reports that disputes over virtual property are burgeoning in China’s booming online-gaming industry. (“Real verdict in China for virtual loss”, CNET Asia, Dec. 29; “Online gamer in China wins virtual theft suit”, Reuters/CNN, Dec. 20; Jay Lyman, “Gamer Wins Lawsuit in Chinese Court Over Stolen Virtual Winnings”, TechNewsWorld, Dec. 19). A conference last month on “Games and the Law” at New York Law School (papers) included a paper by Dan Hunter and F. Gregory Lastowka on “Virtual Property” (PDF).
Patents and stem cell research
Ronald Bailey reports on prominent Luddite Jeremy Rifkin’s attempt to hijack the patent system as a staging ground for litigation against biotech projects he disapproves of — including the efforts of a Nevada professor to save lives by using sheep embryos to generate human liver cells for eventual patient-specific transplants. So far the Patent Office is resisting the efforts. (“Shimmering Chimeras”, ReasonOnline, Dec. 24).