SCOTUS
Latest
Supreme Court declines appeals from Apple and Epic Games in App Store case
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeals filed by both Apple and Epic Games.
The Supreme Court will hear social media cases with immense free speech implications
The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear two cases that could transform how social media companies police their content.
Florida asks Supreme Court to decide fight over social media regulation
Florida has petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on whether states can make social media platforms host speech.
The Supreme Court won't hear the Apple-Qualcomm patent case
The Supreme Court has denied Apple's effort to invalidate two Qualcomm patents from that played a role in the companies' 2019 legal battle.
Texas's bizarre social media law suspended by Supreme Court
The "censorship" law, which has raised serious questions about first amendment rights and the platforming of heinous viewpoints, is back on hold.
Supreme Court vacates ruling that prevented Trump from blocking Twitter critics
Not that it matters too much for Trump anyway after Twitter permanently banned him.
Supreme Court rules generic website names can be trademarked
Justices determined in an 8-1 ruling that Booking.com is eligible for a trademark.
Supreme Court broadcasts oral arguments live for the first time
The Supreme Court has broadcast oral arguments live for the first time, including online, as COVID-19 prevented in-person access.
Supreme Court denies Kim Dotcom petition to keep $40 million in assets
Kim Dotcom, the founder of illegal file-sharing site Megaupload, was arrested in 2012 by New Zealand authorities on behalf of the US. He still has not been extradited to the US, however. In April of this year, the file-sharing maven asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a 2014 ruling that let US authorities keep $75 million in assets seized during the original raid on his house. The petition was denied on October 2nd, which allows the seizure order to remain intact.
Trump to announce his SCOTUS pick tonight via Facebook Live
Donald Trump will announce his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court Justice seat tonight via Facebook Live. The stream begins at 8pm Eastern via the POTUS Facebook channel. As CNN reports, both candidates (Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman) have apparently been told they're Trump's favorite for the lifetime seat. Apparently, there will be Apprentice-style staging for the announcement: one prospect will walk away without the job while the world watches. Political theater like this is nothing new for Trump, but turning the presidency into a reality show is sure to ruffle some feathers.
US Supreme Court rules Aereo's streaming service is illegal under copyright law
In a precedent-setting decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that Aereo is in violation of US copyright law. The decision states that Aereo's use of tiny antennas hooked up to cloud DVR technology violates the right of companies producing broadcast content. Specifically, the decision says that Aereo's business violates the 1976 Copyright Act; the act states that individuals or businesses are violating copyright if: 1: perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or 2: to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work ... to the public by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places at the same time or at different times In the case of Aereo, the Supreme Court says the company's service is tantamount to "a performance or display of the work." Update (6/28): As of 11:30AM ET today, Aereo has "paused" its service, and is refunding subscribers for their last paid month.
Judges have more discretion to punish patent trolls, but they probably won't
The US Supreme Court just gave judges a little more leverage to punish patent trolls: it defined the word "exceptional." A provision of federal patent law hinged on the definition of the word, stating that the court could charge a lawsuit's losing party with the winner's attorney fees in "exceptional cases." It sounds straightforward: if a lawsuit is obviously frivolous, the patent troll pays its victim's costs. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, precedent from a previous case left the rule with "an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexible." In other words, it was too difficult to define exactly how exceptional a case was, making it nearly impossible to implement punitive fee-shifting.
What you need to know to keep the Feds out of your phone
If you're arrested for overdue speeding tickets, is it acceptable for the police to search the phone on your person? How about if you're arrested for drug trafficking? In the eyes of the law, there is no difference: If you're arrested, you're arrested, whatever the crime. Isn't that an invasion of privacy? That depends on your interpretation of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That's why two cases being heard at the United States Supreme Court today are of such importance. Both cases hinge on whether police are legally allowed to search the contents of mobile phones confiscated from arrestees without first obtaining a warrant, and the decisions leveled by the Supreme Court will impact every citizen in the United States.
What you need to know about Aereo's battle with broadcast television
Today, the United States Supreme Court will spend one hour hearing the latest arguments in an old, important debate that affects everyone watching television in the US: Who owns the airwaves? ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and others use the broadcast frequencies our TV antennas pick up; the government regulates those frequencies; and cable companies pay broadcasters to re-broadcast those frequencies. But the answer to who owns them remains nebulous. That is at the heart of today's case -- "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. v. Aereo, Inc." -- being decided by the highest court in the United States. And the decision stands to leave a massive impact on how Americans consume television, regardless of which side wins.
Department of Justice comes out against Aereo's TV streaming in Supreme Court case
It's never a good idea to make an enemy of the federal government, and it appears that Aereo now finds itself in just that predicament. On Monday, the US Department of Justice came out in favor of the broadcasters that oppose Aereo in a case currently before the US Supreme Court. The feds filed an amicus brief -- a legal memo aimed at educating swaying the justices to a certain point of view written by someone not a party in a lawsuit -- that refutes Aereo's position that it doesn't need to license the content viewed by its users. The case is, of course, all about copyright law, and specifically, it raises the question whether or not Aereo's technology enables public or private performances of the video being watched (public performances constitute infringement, private ones do not).
Supreme Court refuses to hear Mirror Worlds' appeal to have damages award against Apple reinstated
Back in 2008, a company called Mirror Worlds filed a patent-infringement suit against Apple alleging that a number of OS X features infringed upon one of its patents. The accused features included Cover Flow, Time Machine and OS X's Spotlight search feature. In October 2010, Mirror Worlds won a US$625.5 million judgement against Apple. At the time, the damages amount was the fourth-largest patent judgement in US history. Apple, naturally, appealed and in April 2011, a federal judge reversed the judgment. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court refused to consider Mirror Worlds' recent attempt to have $208.5 million of the damages award reinstated. Bloomberg reports: Apple Inc.'s victory in a patent-infringement case was left intact as the US Supreme Court rebuffed a Texas company's effort to revive a $208.5 million verdict against the computer maker. The high court declined to hear a case in which closely held Mirror Worlds LLC said an appeals court erred in ruling that Apple didn't infringe a software patent for a way to index and file documents. Mirror Worlds was co-founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter.
ESA wants $1.1 million reimbursement from California for SCOTUS battle
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has filed for a $1.1 million reimbursement for attorneys' fees from the State of California for fighting Brown v. EMA. The ESA's argument for reimbursement: "California persisted in defending a law that Plaintiffs warned the Legislature was unconstitutional before it was passed; that was previously found to be unconstitutional by the district court and a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit; and that is similar to at least eight other laws invalidated as unconstitutional prior to the time that California sought certiorari in this case." If only California had heeded the ESA's warning after it publicly posted the $282,794 reimbursement check for legal fees it received from the state, following a lower court's decision back in 2008.
LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: I believe I likely owe you an apology. LGJ should have covered this decision the day it was issued, but unfortunately, sometimes clients have to come first. So here we are, a few days after the decision, and the topic has been covered in great detail. I have read the decision, but have largely avoided other coverage of the case so that I could give you my opinion without being impacted by other analysis. Since I imagine most coverage has largely been focused on the majority opinion alone, I will also be discussing the concurring and dissenting opinions. As always, this is simply my opinion on the decision, and to that end, there is some room for people to disagree. This was, in short, about the best possible outcome, both for the game industry and for the public at large, that could have been expected. It was also an opinion that was the most consistent with existing case law and contemporary First Amendment legal theory. The most important aspect to this case was the court stating fairly unequivocally that new and different forms of media shouldn't be treated any differently simply because they are new and different forms of media. Ultimately, obscene content is obscene content, and though some media may have an easier time crossing the line than others, that doesn't mean the line moves.
Jon Stewart kombats mortally with Supreme Court decision
Mortal Kombat makes Jon Stewart uncomfortable, and not in the good, pants-region way. Last night on The Daily Show, Stewart dissected the finer points of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision to allow the sale of violent video games to minors, using Noob's ripping-fun fatality on Sonya Blade as a demonstration of Mature material. Stewart noted the courts may regulate sexual material, while extreme violence can now terrorize our children's minds all the legal-long day. Stewart generally offers an open-minded comedic spin to the news, but at the end of the day he's still a middle-aged American man on television, and the sight of a woman's internal organs spilling from her gaping torso never seems to sit well with their kind. But good of him for showing it on basic cable and posting it for free online, where every child with thumbs can now access the gruesome slaughter of a busty blonde woman by two men in black masks. As long as her shirt stays on. [Thanks, Ben!]
Victory lap: ESA responds to Supreme Court decision
After battling the state of California since 2005, the Entertainment Software Association met the Supreme Court's historic decision today to classify video games as protected speech with both great joy and, we imagine, a tinge of sadness. During a press call this afternoon, ESA prez Michael Gallagher fielded question after question about the case, the court's dissenting opinions, and the likelihood of future legislation trying to curb the sale of violent games. "This is the thirteenth consecutive decsion, and obviously the most important," Gallagher said, "upholding the first-amendment rights of video game developers and video game companies." After the Supreme Court decided to hear the California case, Gallagher says that the ESA has "seen a very steady drop-off in the volume of legislation targeted at content in our industry." In fact, "there's only a single federal bill that addresses these issues at the moment and it has at least one or no co-sponsors," Gallagher said proudly.
