judge
Latest
Judge forces defendant to decrypt laptop, fuels debate over Fifth Amendment rights
A judge in Colorado yesterday ordered a defendant to decrypt her laptop's hard drive at the prosecution's request, adding new fire to the ongoing debate surrounding consumer technology and the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Ramona Fricosu, is facing charges of bank fraud, stemming from a federal investigation launched in 2010. As part of this investigation, federal authorities used a search warrant to seize her Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop. Fricosu's legal team had previously refused to decrypt the computer, on the grounds that doing so would violate her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination. On Monday, though, US District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled against the defendant, arguing that the prosecution retained the right to access her device, as stipulated under the All Writs Act -- a law that requires mobile operators to comply with federal surveillance."I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote, adding that there was strong evidence to suggest that Fricosu's computer contained information pertinent to the case. Fricosu's lawyer, Phil Dubois, is hoping to obtain a stay on the ruling, in the hopes of taking the case to an appeals court. "I think it's a matter of national importance," Dubois explained. "It should not be treated as though it's just another day in Fourth Amendment litigation." It remains to be seen whether Dubois succeeds in his appeal, though civil libertarians are already paying close attention to the case, since the US Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the matter.
German court shoots down Samsung's 3G patent lawsuit against Apple
Germany's Mannheim Regional Court has just issued a decision on one front of the ongoing dispute between Apple and Samsung, ruling against one of the Korean manufacturer's several patent infringement claims. At issue is a Samsung patent pertaining to the 3G / UMTS standard -- one of seven that Apple has been accused of infringing. Today, Judge Andreas Voss rejected Samsung's claim, though the reasoning behind this decision remains somewhat murky. According to FOSS Patents, however, the validity of the patent itself probably wasn't the driver behind Voss' ruling, since any doubts would have resulted in a stay, rather than an outright rejection. FOSS speculates that the court determined either that Apple wasn't infringing upon Samsung's patent, or that Samsung has simply exhausted its IP rights.In a statement, Samsung said it has yet to decide whether it will appeal today's ruling. "We are disappointed that the court did not share our views regarding the infringement by Apple of this specific patent in Germany," spokesman Nam Ki-yung said. "It should be noted that today's ruling relates to only one of several patents asserted by Samsung in the Mannheim court." We're still awaiting official documentation, and will update this post as soon as we hear more.
Federal judge dismisses class-action suit against Sony, 'Other OS' feature remains dormant
Last year, a group of disgruntled gamers filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony over its decision to remove the "Install Other OS" feature from its PS3 firmware. Last week, though, their case was dismissed by US District Judge Richard Seeborg, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to actually state a claim. In a ruling issued Thursday, Seeborg said he sympathized with the gamers' gripes, but ultimately determined that they had failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the feature, thereby neutering their arguments. "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable." He went on, however, to point out that the users "have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable" post-PS3 purchase, effectively ending the litigation.
Chanel counterfeiters beware: US federal court orders domain names seized and de-indexed
We're well versed in the art of the gadget KIRF 'round these parts, but counterfeiting's a problem faced by the fashion world, too. Chanel filed suit in federal court to stop hundreds of websites from selling KIRFs of its gear, and the judge recently ordered the seizure and transfer of those domain names to GoDaddy to hold in trust until the case is resolved. It was also decreed that they be stricken from the indices of search engines and social media -- including, but not limited to Bing, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. So it seems the federal courts have obtained the ability to order that legal remedy (the de-indexing) be given by companies not party to a lawsuit (Google, et al), though we know of no law granting it such powers. Of course, we can't know for sure until one of the accused copycat sites decides to lawyer up and fight back. Until then, fashion KIRFs beware: the feds can apparently wipe every trace of you from the internet.
Apple could face huge potential loss if Motorola wins in German court
So far, Apple has been faring pretty well on the various patent disputes it's currently fighting against Samsung and other companies, but Apple's own lawyers agree that stakes are higher than usual in a German case that Motorola has filed against the company. If a German court upholds the order that's trying to halt sales of Apple products in that country because of the patent dispute, Apple says it might lose as much as US$2.7 billion in potential sales. Apple's legal team is arguing that if the order does indeed go through, Motorola should have to put that money up in a bond while the case is still under investigation by the courts. But a lot of this is legal posturing -- as the judge in the hearing says, he's "not yet entirely sure that amount adequately mirrors the commercial value of this dispute." Obviously Apple wants the bond to be as high as possible; if Motorola flinches and can't put up the bond when asked, the case could be weakened. At any rate, there's plenty of time to decide, since the court's ruling isn't due until February 3. It seems unlikely that Motorola could stop Apple's sales in Germany completely, but it sounds like if Motorola pushes to do so, Apple will try to make it pay.
Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment, saga continues
Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud." The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.
Zediva ordered to permanently shut down operations, pay $1.8 million to MPAA
The last time we checked in with Zediva, the DVD streaming service was reeling from a court-ordered preliminary injunction that effectively brought its operations to a halt. At the time, the California-based company was still pinning its hopes on the promise of a forthcoming appeal, but those hopes were summarily quashed on Friday, when US District Judge John Walter rendered the injunction permanent. Zediva had previously exposed an apparent loophole in US copyright law, by allowing users to stream movies from physical DVDs located in Silicon Valley. This strategy allowed the firm to offer newly released movies well before other on-demand services, but according to Judge Walter, it was also illegal. Zediva will now have to cease all operations and pay $1.8 million in damages to the MPAA. The defendant has yet to comment on the decision, but MPAA Associate General Counsel Dan Robbins seemed understandably delighted: "This result sends a strong message to those who would exploit the studios' works in violation of copyright law, on the Internet or elsewhere, and it is an important victory for the more than 2 million American men and women whose livelihoods depend on a thriving film and television industry."
UK court orders ISP to block Newzbin 2 filesharing site within two weeks, Hollywood smiles
Pirates just can't catch a break these days. Way back in July, a British judge ordered telecom company BT to block its subscribers from visiting a site called Newzbin 2, on the grounds that the ISP had "actual knowledge" of customers using the platform access copyright infringing content. An appeal was soon filed, but yesterday, it was shot down by a high court. Under the order, BT will have 14 days to seal off access to Newzbin 2, and will have to do so on its own dime -- something the provider was aiming to avoid. The decision marks the first time that an ISP has been forced to block access to a filesharing site, something the Motion Picture Association heralded as "a win for the creative sector." BT, meanwhile, didn't have much to say about the ruling, stating only that "it is helpful to have the order now and the clarity that it brings." Less certain, however, is the impact this order will have on future copyright lawsuits and web censorship, in general. Find the ruling in its entirety at the coverage link, below.
Appeals court affirms Richard Garriott's lawsuit win against NCsoft
Ever since Richard Garriott won his lawsuit against former employer NCsoft last year, the legal process has been grinding on ever since to hash out the details. Today we've learned that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the win of almost $32 million in favor of Garriott. The lawsuit came about after NCsoft fired Garriott in 2008 and then marked his departure as "voluntary," causing his stock options to expire instead of remaining intact through the end of his 2011 contract. In 2010 a court found NCsoft to have breached its contract, and it ordered the company to pay $28 million plus interest and attorney fees to Garriott and his legal team. This recent ruling affirms that outcome and paves the path for Garriott to be compensated. In the ruling, the 5th Circuit Court writes, "It would be unjust to allow NCsoft to sit back during trial, observe Garriott's litigation strategy, and then demand a new trial on damages when it dislikes the verdict." [Source: Androvett Legal Media press release]
French court reverses DS flash cart ruling, Nintendo smiles
Nearly two years ago, a French court dismissed a lawsuit that Nintendo filed against a group of vendors accused of illegally selling DS flash carts. At the time, the game-maker argued that sales of the cartridges should be halted on the grounds that they could be used to illegally pirate software, but the presiding judge thought differently, countering that the R4-like devices could be used to develop homebrews or other DIY projects. Last week, however, the Paris Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, in a decision that Nintendo has met with understandable delight. In a statement released today, the company confirmed that Divineo SARL and five other flash cart retailers must pay a total of €460,000 in criminal fines, along with €4.8 million in damages to Nintendo, as ordered by the appeals court. Details behind the ruling remain vague, though Nintendo hailed it as a "strong message to French companies... that such activities are illegal and will not be tolerated," and that convicted vendors will "risk prison terms, face substantial fines and obligations to pay damages." Sail past the break to read Nintendo's statement, in full.
Judge rules in favor of employees fired over Facebook post, orders them back to work
The National Labor Relations Board has weighed in on the role of social networking at the office, determining that employees can't be fired for what they post on Facebook -- as long as they use the platform to talk about improving their workplace. The NLRB's ruling, announced on Wednesday, stems from an incident last year, when an employee at the Hispanics United of Buffalo non-profit organization went on Facebook to complain about a co-worker who accused her of slacking off at the office. Other colleagues soon chimed in on the woman's wall post with a slew of profanity-laced comments, before the targeted employee noticed the thread and reported it to a supervisor. Citing the agency's zero-tolerance policy on cyber harassment, the boss fired the five employees who participated in the online discussion -- including one who went on to file a complaint with the NLRB. Last week, administrative law Judge Arthur Amchan finally issued a verdict in the case, determining that the employees retained the right to talk about "their terms and conditions of employment," as stipulated under the National Labor Relations Act. Because this particular Facebook thread involved discussion of "job performance and staffing levels," Amchan ordered Hispanics United to reinstate the employees. The decision marks the first time that an administrative judge has ruled on a Facebook-related workplace case, though the NLRB says it's received "an increasing number of charges related to social media in the past year" -- so it likely won't be the last. You can read the Board's statement in full, after the break.
US judge won't return seized URL to Rojadirecta.com, absolutamente no
Welcome to the homepage of popular sports streaming and p2p site Rojadirecta.com. Why all the birdy logos and harsh words about going to prison? Well, it's a convoluted story, which began when a whole bunch of sports sites -- including Rojadirecta -- were summarily seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, based on "probable cause to believe" they'd been involved in copyright infringement. Awkwardly, the Spanish owners of this particular site had already been cleared of any wrongdoing by courts in Spain, but this counted for nada because their .com URL was American. So, their one hope was to convince a US judge that the seizure violated the First Amendment and should be overturned. This case won support from freedom of speech activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but on Thursday it finally failed. The presiding judge ruled that no rights had been violated, because Rojadirecta could easily set up shop at a non-US address and continue to function. Bad news indeed for the Spaniards -- maybe they should move to the UK, where due process takes a whole lot longer.
ITC patent ruling against Apple will stand, Kodak nods approvingly
July is shaping up to be a pretty good month for Kodak. Just a few weeks after granting the camera-maker a second wind in its ongoing patent battle against Apple and RIM, the ITC has issued yet another decision in its favor, determining that a May ruling against Cupertino will stand. At issue is an Apple complaint, filed in April 2010, charging Kodak with infringement of two patents on image processing and power management. On May 12, ITC Judge Robert Rogers shot down Apple's attack, ruling that the patents were not infringed and that one of them was invalid. The full Court had been scheduled to review Rogers' decision later this year, but that won't be happening, now that the ITC has decided to close the investigation (see the PDF, below). Kodak was understandably pleased with the result, though its focus will now turn to August 30th, when an administrative law judge is expected to weigh in on the company's patent offensive against both RIM and Apple.
Judge throws out Paul Allen's massive patent suit, Allen plans to continue
Remember the massive patent lawsuit leveled at Apple, Google, AOL, Facebook, ebay, Netflix, and a number of other companies by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen? Well, it's now hit something of a snag -- a federal judge dismissed the case on Friday, stating that Allen's suit "failed to identify the infringing products or devices with any specificity," and that the court and defendants were basically "left to guess what devices infringe on the four patents." For his part, Allen apparently plans to persevere with the patent fight, and said through a spokesman that the dismissal was merely a "procedural issue," and that "the case is staying on track" -- Allen now has until December 28th to file an amended complaint.
New York judge rules 'private' Facebook content can be used as evidence in court
Privacy? On the internet!? You've got to be joking. That has, more or less, been the reaction of New York Justice Jeffrey Spinner when faced with the issue of deciding whether or not content posted to the private sections of Facebook and MySpace should be made available as evidence in court. To be honest, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, since typically private information -- like emails and home contents -- can regularly be thrown into the public light when there's "a reasonable likelihood" it may turn up evidence material to a trial's outcome. Bring that tradition to the internet -- where publishing anything comes with an inherent desire to disseminate or share that info -- and the lady claiming for personal injuries against a chair company shouldn't be surprised her "private" snaps are being requested. You know, in case they show her doing the limbo on a tropical isle somewhere. Then again, she could always move to California, where a local judge answered pretty much the same question in a converse fashion. Laws, it's all about how you interpret them.
Judge unseals documents in Gizmodo case, finder offered extra $3500 and bonus for lost iPhone
After multiple requests from media like Wired.com and the Los Angeles Times, a judge has unsealed the search warrant in the Gizmodo case. According to California law, search papers must be made public within 10 days of a search being completed, unless there are extenuating circumstances in the case. In this one, the prosecutors were arguing that the identities (presumably of the Apple employee who originally lost the iPhone purchased by Gizmodo's editor, as well as the person who found it and sold it to Gizmodo) could be revealed. But that information had already reached the Web -- Gizmodo identified the Apple employee as an iPhone engineer, and Wired identified the phone seller, so San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford V. Cretan decided that since the information was already out there, there was no point in keeping the papers sealed up. Judge Cretan made note of the irony that the papers were originally sealed to hide "possible intrusion into media sources," and now it was media institutions asking to have the papers opened up. Wired has the papers now -- they say (not surprisingly) that the iPhone seller's roommate led police to Brian Hogan (who found the phone), but there's also news that Hogan had allegedly spread evidence around Redwood City. The papers also confirm that Gizmodo paid $5000 for the iPhone, but there was also a bonus promised to Hogan when Apple officially announced the phone, and an additional $3500 payment from "another source." Interesting. Maybe there is more to this case than we had originally heard. Keep in mind that this is only the initial investigation -- no charges have yet been filed. [via The Loop]
Judge suspends Apple/Nokia lawsuit pending ITC investigation
With all of the furor around the gigantic patent lawsuit that Apple dropped on HTC this week, you might be forgiven for forgetting about the first big patent smackdown of the year, the lawsuit that Nokia laid at Apple's door. But a judge in Delaware hasn't -- he ordered a suspension [Ed. note: link broken to original article and removed] to both the case and its countersuit while the International Trade Commission works out the complaints between the two companies. Clearly Nokia and Apple have it out for one another, but apparently they're going to take it one step at a time. Once the ITC has completed its probe, which was scheduled to take 45 days after it agreed to perform the investigation on February 22nd, then the lawsuit will presumably move forward. That's if it's still on and not settled by then, although Nokia seems in it to win it, and Apple apparently has enough bandwidth (and legal fees) to pick two fights at once anyway. So bring it, ITC, and then let's get this show on the road. [via Macworld]
Court orders Microsoft to stop selling Office 2007 by January 11th
Update: A statement from Microsoft's director of public affairs, Kevin Kutz, clarifies the affected versions. Note that Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac was not cited as an infringing product, so this ruling is not applicable to Mac versions of Office. We have just learned that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied our appeal in the i4i case. We are moving quickly to comply with the injunction, which takes effect on January 11, 2010. This injunction applies only to copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007 sold in the U.S. on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010. Copies of these products sold before this date are not affected. With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction. While we are moving quickly to address the injunction issue, we are also considering our legal options, which could include a request for a rehearing by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc or a request for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoa. A judge for the The U.S. Court of Appeals has just upheld an earlier verdict forbidding Microsoft from selling both Office and Word after January 11th, 2010. This suit, which was filed by i4i, a creator of a XML plugin for Microsoft Office, alleged that Microsoft's Open XML format, which uses the DOCX and XLSX extensions that have been a part of Office on the Mac since Office 2007, violated i4i's patented XML handling algorithms. The court ruled in favor of i4i back in May, and Microsoft today lost their appeal, with the judge telling them that they don't have the right to sell the software as-is. Microsoft now either has to attempt to appeal the ruling again, or settle with i4i (read as: "Ballmer has to write a big honking check"), and is currently considering further legal options. The company is also working to remove these features from Microsoft Office (possibly in time to release new versions of the old software on January 11th), and this ruling doesn't affect the upcoming Office 2010 for Windows. We'll keep you posted if anything further develops.
Nintendo loses DS flash cart case in French court
According to a post on Maxconsole, a court in Paris has just dismissed a lawsuit filed by Nintendo over the use of flash carts on the DS. Apparently, the gamemaker was attempting to halt the use of the cartridges due to their ability to circumvent copy protection and allow for pirating of software, but a judge in France took a decidedly different view. As the carts are often used for homebrew and DIY projects, the court holds that owners of the console should be able to develop software much as a license holder of Windows might. Furthermore, the article claims that the court also deemed Nintendo's strict control of development "illegal" (Maxconsole's words), and said that development of software for the system shouldn't be hamstrung by the need for proprietary kits. This ruling follows a recent Spanish case in which the court dismissed Nintendo's lawsuit over flash carts claiming that while the add-ons do violate DRM, they also legitimately extend the functionality of the console.
The Pirate Bay retrial request denied
It seems the lengthy litigatory road embarked upon by The Pirate Bay's four founders back in April is finally coming to an end. Following a guilty verdict that sentenced Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde to one year in prison and fines of 30 million kronor (about $4 million), the quartet's lawyer requested an appeal after it was revealed that the presiding judge over the case was, in fact, a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property. The request was denied earlier today by the Svea Court of Appeal.Yes, the folks who made it possible to finally find that KeyGen for your downloaded copy of Barbie Horse Adventures: Mystery Ride are heading for a Swedish slammer -- but before they go, they'll reportedly press charges against Sweden for violating their human rights.[Original image: marcusrg]
