ruling
Latest
Court says violating your work's computer policy isn't a crime
Your employers might shake their fists when you check Facebook at work, but they can't have you sent to prison for it. A US appeals court has ruled that breaking corporate computer policies isn't against the law all by itself -- you have to commit a specific crime to get in trouble. Prosecutors had tried to argue that an NYPD officer was violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by looking up people for non-police purposes (which violates policy), but the court thought this was an overly broad interpretation. If that's illegal, the court says, "millions of ordinary computer users" would also be breaking the law.
Court rules that UberPOP cars can still pick you up in Paris
Uber's Paris headquarters were recently raided by 25 policemen, but a court has now ruled that its disputed UberPOP service is actually honky-dory -- for now. The company's low-cost ridesharing option uses non-professional drivers, a practice that French authorities have called unlawful (its other services use professional drivers and are legal). However, the decision is more of a reprieve than a victory for Uber. Paris's Cour d'Appel merely passed the buck to a higher appeals court on whether or not to ban UberPOP. Still, it means Uber can continue to operate the service in Paris until at least June, when a new constitutional court ruling is due.
Blizzard wins lawsuit and shuts down Hearthstone clone
Back in January we reported that Blizzard levied a lawsuit against Unico Interactive for its game, Legend of Crouching Dragon, which Blizzard claimed was a reskinned clone of Hearthstone. It looks as though the courts agreed, awarding Blizzard and its Chinese partner NetEase $1.6 million due to copyright infringement. Legend of Crouching Dragon has been removed from app stores, and Unico said that it will be reimbursing players for money spent on it to date. Even with the ruling, Unico remains defiant against "false stories" in the press and claims that it hasn't seen any official order to pay compensation to Blizzard.
Uber banned across Germany
Despite putting the brakes on injunctions in both Berlin and Hamburg, Uber has once again felt the effects of a ban, but this time it's effective on a national level. Earlier today, a court in Frankfurt ruled that the car-hailing service doesn't have the necessary permits or insurance under German law. Despite facing a potential €250,000 fine for each unsanctioned journey and the risk that its directors could face time behind bars, Uber says the ban is unenforceable and has pledged to continue picking up passengers while it launches an appeal. Industry body Taxi Deutschland is happy with the ruling, though, describing Uber as a "form of locust share-economy" and also adding that smartphone ratings should not replace proper accreditation by authorities. The ruling comes just days after the company announced its intention to double capacity in the country by year-end. Despite today's court action hanging over its head, even the threat of a national ban doesn't appear to have distracted Uber from meeting its goal.
Brazilian judge tells Apple and Google to pull Secret from people's devices
Secret's app is ostensibly meant for office gossip and getting transgressions out of your system, but it has also been abused by bullies wanting to intimidate and shame others. Well, one Brazilian judge is fed up with that misuse -- enough so that he's ordering Apple and Google to remove Secret not just from their respective local app stores, but from people's devices. Microsoft also has to yank Cryptic, an equivalent Windows Phone app. If the companies don't take action within 10 days, they face fines of 20,000 Reals ($8,876) per day. That's a drop in the bucket given their massive revenue streams, but it's reasonable to say that they'd rather not pay that much just to keep one title available in one country.
EU court says Google must remove links to personal data if it's asked to
Google's recent run of bad luck in Europe has reached new heights after it was told it must take down links to personal information found in its search results. The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) today ruled that Google should be made responsible for processing links to personal data which appears on third-party websites, so it must allow users to request that outdated or irrelevant information be removed. Google has long argued that such a ruling amounts to censorship, but Europe's top court agrees with the European Commission's belief that people should have the "right to be forgotten."
Verizon fought the NSA's metadata collection program but lost anyway
It looks like Verizon's concerns about government snooping go beyond publishing transparency reports -- but also haven't had much of a tangible effect. The Washington Post understands through both a declassified ruling and sources that Big Red quietly challenged the constitutionality of the NSA's call metadata collection in January, only to be shot down by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in March.
Court rules that the EU's data retention law violates privacy rights
The European Union has argued that telecom companies must hold on to internet and phone records for long periods to help track down evildoers, but the European Court of Justice disagrees -- vehemently. It just ruled that the EU's Data Retention Directive, which preserves metadata for up to two years, is a "wide-ranging and particularly serious" violation of the EU's privacy rights. It collects more information than necessary, doesn't establish firm limits and lets companies send data outside of the EU, according to the ruling. While the Directive doesn't scoop up actual content, the court believes that the unrestricted collection allows too much insight into people's daily activities and social connections. Sound familiar? It should. The ruling acknowledges the privacy concerns that prompted the US' proposed metadata reforms, but goes one step further -- the court is contending that bulk data retention by itself is dangerous without serious restrictions.
EU court rules that internet providers may have to block pirate sites
Internet providers in Europe may soon have little choice but to filter out pirate sites. In resolving an Austrian case, the European Court of Justice has ruled that EU countries can ask carriers to block copyright infringers, whether or not the networks are involved. The EU's laws don't require that governments limit injunctions to just the parties directly linked to a case, according to the court. While the decision isn't good news for online free speech advocates, there's no guarantee of a chilling effect -- individual nations still have to decide whether or not they'll block sites in the first place. It's the providers who are most likely to face any short-term consequences, since they may have to pay extra to obey local content restriction orders. [Image credit: European Union Naval Force Somalia, Flickr]
Blizzard wins court case over patent troll Worlds Inc.
A Boston court ruled in Blizzard's favor last week against a lawsuit brought on by Worlds Inc. (aka Worlds.com) that claimed the studio infringed on four patents that Worlds Inc. made in the mid-1990s. This ruling is the latest development in a case that spans back to 2012, when Worlds Inc. filed the suit. The company claimed that Blizzard violated patents that showed the invention of "a method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space," among other items. A U.S. District Judge ruled that these patents are invalid because those inventions already existed prior to the filings. This isn't Worlds' first attempt to sue an MMO studio over these allegations, as it went after (and lost to) NCsoft and Linden Lab several years ago.
Court rules that Pandora won't pay higher royalties to songwriters (update: ruling details)
Pandora has been fighting tooth and nail against potential songwriting royalty increases, and it appears that this tenacity is largely paying off. A court has ruled that the streaming radio service should pay the same 1.85 percent royalty rate that it has paid for years, resisting both Pandora's call for 1.7 percent (like traditional radio) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers' (ASCAP) demand for 3 percent. Details of the ruling are under a court seal, so the motivations behind the decision aren't yet clear. However, ASCAP is more than a little upset by its loss; it sees the verdict as proof that full-scale licensing reform is necessary to "reflect the realities" of modern music. Whether or not that's true, the Society may have inadvertently sabotaged its own case. It pointed to iTunes Radio's higher royalty rate as a model for fair compensation, but Apple is willing to make little to no profit from its music services -- ASCAP may have unintentionally suggested that its proposal wasn't realistic. Update: A week later, the details of the ruling are available. The judge determined that ASCAP was colluding with publishers to force Pandora to pay higher rates; it would ask publishers to leave the group so that they could negotiate more lucrative deals on their own, raising their royalty demands to give ASCAP more leverage at the rate court.
Judge rules that flying commercial drones is legal, for now (update: FAA appeals decision)
The Federal Aviation Administration may want to go through some rigorous testing before it allows commercial drone flights on a broader basis, but the National Transportation Safety Board isn't willing to wait that long. One of the Board's judges has determined that the FAA currently has no authority to regulate drones; the move effectively makes drones legal, and it spares a pilot from a $10,000 fine for shooting a commercial with his unmanned aircraft. The Administration has no rules on the books for such vehicles, according to the judge, and the 2007 policy notice it has been using to ban drones isn't binding. There's still a possibility that the FAA will create enforceable rules down the line. For now, though, Amazon and UPS don't have to worry about legal threats to their delivery drone plans. Update: The FAA is appealing the judge's decision, and according to the press release this "has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules." Basically, don't expect Netflix's Drone 2 Home deliveries to take off anytime soon.
Appeals court strikes down key parts of the FCC's net neutrality rules (update: Verizon statement)
If you were hoping that the FCC's net neutrality rules would survive the many legal challenges thrown in their path, think again. A Washington, DC appeals court has voided the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination requirements in the FCC's Open Internet Order, arguing that they go beyond the agency's mandates. While the court acknowledges the potential for bad behavior following its decision, it argues that services like Google Fiber will keep incumbent carriers honest. That's an odd argument given that many of these services have a tiny footprint at best -- in many cases, big carriers enjoy duopolies and monopolies across much of the US. The move potentially lets providers like Verizon (which first appealed the rules) either block competing internet services on their landline networks, or charge those companies extra for features like guaranteed delivery or higher performance. The FCC hasn't yet responded to the decision, but we can't imagine that it's happy. If it wants net neutrality, it may now have to classify internet providers as common carriers, like wired telephone lines -- a move that would likely face stiff opposition. Update: Verizon has issued a statement arguing that it supports an open internet even with the decision in its favor. However, Big Red contradicts itself by claiming that the ruling gives customers more say over "how they access and experience the internet" -- we wouldn't count on that openness lasting forever.
German court says Wikimedia is liable for article contents after they're published (updated)
The Wikimedia Foundation positions Wikipedia as a hub for unfettered knowledge, but it's now obligated to police that content in the wake of a newly published German ruling. Stuttgart's Higher Regional Court has determined that the organization is liable for Wikipedia articles. While Wikimedia won't have to screen content, it will have to verify any disputed passages and remove them if they're known to be false. The court isn't telling Wikimedia how to handle this verification, although the legal presumption of innocence will still apply. We're not expecting a chilling effect on Wikipedia given that takedowns will only be necessary in a handful of circumstances. However, it gives Wikimedia's moderators an extra level of responsibility -- they'll now have to pull some content quickly to minimize the chances of lawsuits. Updated: Wikimedia has clarified the ruling. The court sees Wikimedia as a service provider that, on a basic level, isn't liable for content. However, the site will only maintain its immunity so long as it pulls any content that allegedly violates German laws. If it declines, it risks opening itself to legal action.
Judge rules against authors in Google Books copyright infringement case
Google's Books project, which has indexed millions of titles and made them available online, hasn't always been on completely solid legal footing. After all, Books operates without the permission of authors, which has understandably drawn some ire from copyright holders, not to mention other web giants. Well, a federal ruling handed down today gives strong backing to Google's digitizing efforts: U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by an author group against Google. In his opinion, Chin ruled that showing excerpts of books in search results falls under fair use, and that Books "advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals." Of course, for writers hoping to get paid for access to their works, this decision will come as a disappointment. But considering how deeply ingrained the Google Books project is by now, the ruling is hardly surprising, either.
Court rules that Deutsche Telekom can't throttle internet speeds on flat-rate plans
Suddenly, we fancy moving to Germany. A Cologne court has ruled that Deutsche Telekom can't implement a plan to throttle speeds to 2Mbps on wired, flat-rate internet service once customers exceed monthly data caps. The policy would pose an "unreasonable disadvantage" to subscribers that rely on stable prices and connection speeds, according to the decision. Deutsche Telekom expects to appeal the ruling, but it may face an uphill battle -- when its current internet service runs at speeds up to 200Mbps, the proposed throttling would be severe. We just hope that American internet providers take the hint.
Federal appeals court rules search warrants not needed to seize cellphone records
Cast your memory back to 2011 and you may remember a Texas judge ruling that the seizure of cellphone records without a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Fast-forward to today, and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has just overturned that very decision, arguing that law enforcement's collection of such data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and doesn't need to pass the probable cause test. Instead, as the info is considered a service provider's business records, authorities can get ahold of it so long as they have "reasonable grounds" and obtain a court order. The data in question can include numbers dialed, the date and time of communications and info allowing officials to suss out the phone's location at the time of a call. Despite the gavel's recent action, the issue is far from settled. As the Associated Press notes, a New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled search warrants must be used when officers request access to location information from phones details, while Maine and Montana passed legislation earlier this year requiring the same. To dive into the nitty gritty details of the case for yourself, give the bordering source link a click.
Washington court rules Motorola can get millions, not billions, from Microsoft for its patents
Among the many patent cases currently ongoing between Motorola and Microsoft is one in US District Court in the state of Washington concerning standards-essential WiFi and h.264 patents. AllThingsD reports that while Motorola was requesting billions in royalties for the technology it owns, Judge James Robart -- who invalidated a number of its patent claims a few months ago -- ruled it's entitled to around $1.8 million per year. The reason given? There are so many patents that are part of the h.264 standard, that if every patent were licensed at the amount Motorola sought, those fees would be more than the current cost of the Xbox 360. And, Judge Robart found that Motorola hadn't proven its patents were more valuable than those of other companies included in the same pool. All 207 pages of the decision are available beyond the source link if need more info on the hows and whys of today's decision. ATD also has quotes from each company, and while Microsoft called it a good decision for consumers, Motorola chose to acknowledge the decision, but didn't hint at any reaction or future moves.
AT&T: 'we unlock our customers' devices'
To our delight, the recent ruling that phone subsidy unlocks are no longer protected by copyright law has sparked a lot of attention from the general public as well as the US government. However, some of the carriers are predictably not too excited by the amount of negative light it sheds on their own unlock policies. AT&T has taken to its public policy blog to discuss its viewpoint on the matter. Joan Marsh, VP of Federal Regulatory for the company, insists that "the ruling has very little impact on AT&T customers." Marsh reiterates AT&T's unlock policy by stating: "if we have the unlock code or can reasonably get it from the manufacturer, AT&T currently will unlock a device for any customer whose account has been active for at least sixty days; whose account is in good standing and has no unpaid balance; and who has fulfilled his or her service agreement commitment. If the conditions are met we will unlock up to five devices per account per year."
Samsung loses UK lawsuit against Apple over 3G data
Samsung hasn't been catching many breaks in its court battles with Apple as of late, and that trend isn't quite over yet. A UK court just tossed out claims that Apple violates three Samsung standards-essential patents relating to 3G data transmission, tentatively leaving the American firm free to sell iPhones and other cellular devices in the country -- as long as other lawsuits don't get in the way. Samsung hasn't determined whether or not it will appeal, but a second try isn't as surefire as it might be elsewhere, not when the Galaxy maker has a less-than-stellar record in winning cases where 3G is involved. We'd just like the whole mess to be over.
