supremecourt
Latest
Pirate Bay founders lose final appeal in Sweden, prison looms on the horizon
It looks like Pirate Bay's legal drama has finally come to a close in Sweden, where the Supreme Court today turned down the site's final appeal. At the center of the case are the file sharing site's founders -- Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström -- who have been battling Swedish prosecutors for quite a few years now. After being convicted of facilitating copyright infringement, the trio was initially sentenced to prison. They appealed the ruling in 2010 and, though they failed to overturn it, managed to see their 12-month sentences reduced by between two and eight months. Today, though, their final attempts were shot down, with the Court's dismissal. The fines and prison terms remain the same: ten months for Neij, eight months for Sunde and four for Lundström. There's also a fourth co-founder involved, Gottfrid Svartholm, who has been absent from several hearings. Under today's ruling, his original 12-month sentence will stand, and the four men will have to pay a total of $6.8 million in damages. Because the case has dragged on for at least five years, however, there's a chance that the sentences could be reduced by 12 months (bringing them down to zero), as is common in the Swedish legal system. The decision on this matter, however, remains with the court. TorrentFreak reports that at least one defendant intends to appeal to the European Court of Justice, though the results wouldn't have any effect on Sweden's decision.
Supreme Court says police must get search warrant to use GPS tracking devices
The US Supreme Court ruled today that police must first obtain a search warrant before using GPS devices to track a suspect's vehicle, agreeing with an earlier appeals court ruling but rejecting the Obama administration's position on the case. In delivering the decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court holds "that the government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,'" and therefore violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The case itself concerned a Washington DC nightclub owner and suspected drug dealer, Antoine Jones, who had his car's movements monitored for a month and was eventually sentenced to life in prison, only to see that conviction overturned by the aforementioned appeals court on the grounds that the police did not have a search warrant when they placed the GPS tracking device on his vehicle.[Image courtesy Wired]
Supreme Court rules public domain isn't permanent, says Congress can re-copyright some international works (update)
If you've been enjoying the fireworks over PIPA and SOPA these past weeks, get ready for more intellectual property ugliness. The US Supreme Court handed down a decision in Golan v. Holder Wednesday granting Congress the power to restore copyright claims on works that had entered the public domain. The six to two decision (with only the conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Stephen Breyer dissenting) was issued primarily with an eye towards bringing the country in line with an international treaty known as the Berne Convention. The plaintiffs in the case included orchestra conductors, educators, performers and archivists who rely on public domain works such as Fritz Lang's Metropolis and compositions from Igor Stravinsky. Many orchestras, including that of lead plaintiff Lawrence Golan, will now be forced to stop performing works that are a regular part of their repertoire due to licensing fees. Hit up the more coverage link for the complete (PDF) decision.Update: To be clear, this decision upheld a statute granting copyright protection to a bundle of international works that were placed in the public domain (and therefore denied copyright protection) under previous US laws.
PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors
Turns out Eric Schmidt is not alone in his vehement opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and the resistance is hardly partisan. A group of over 100 law professors signed a letter (jointly authored by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post) arguing that the legislation working its way through congress is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech can't be suppressed without the speaker being given an opportunity to defend his or her actions. Yet, under the bill being advocated for by the RIAA the MPAA, a judge can issue a temporary restraining order that will essentially shutdown a site based only on evidence presented by the government. The letter warns that, not only could overseas domain owners be cheated of the right to due process but, plenty of protected speech could be censored based a single piece of infringing material. As we warned, this can only get nastier and this nascent battle is still only just getting started. Check out the full letter at the source.
US Supreme Court says companies can force arbitration on class-acting consumers
Before today, Californian consumers were free to ignore the arbitration clause tucked in the fine print of every AT&T service contract because state law had declared them unconscionable -- which kept the courthouse doors open to class-acting consumers. However, in a ruling that no doubt pleases AT&T and others of its ilk, the highest court in the land has stripped the states of their power to so avoid arbitration with its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In an opinion penned by Justice Scalia (pictured), the Supremes said that the Federal Arbitration Act was passed to promote arbitration's quick and easy dispute resolution, and they couldn't have California (or any other state) contradicting the will of Congress by allowing lengthy group litigation when parties already agreed to private arbitration. That means companies are free to force customers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of joining together to file high-dollar class-action lawsuits, no matter what state laws say. Guess those large-scale litigation lawyers will have to look elsewhere to find the funds for their next Ferrari.
Government says it's got i4i's back in Word patent dispute
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear yet another appeal in the seemingly unending patent dispute between Microsoft and XML specialists i4i next month, some pretty influential folks are starting to take sides -- officially. Perhaps most notably, Acting Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal filed an amicus brief backing i4i and a previous US Court of Appeals decision to uphold the $290 million judgement against the software giant. Other big guns backing i4i with amicus briefs include DuPont, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and GE. Of course, Microsoft's getting a little help from its friends with official I-got-you-bro statements coming from Google, Apple, Toyota, and Walmart. The appeal is expected to hit the Supreme Court in April and has big implications for patent litigation -- specifically, it could give tech giants like Microsoft more guts to go after patents held by little guys like i4i.
iPad versus Kindle: even the Supreme Court can't decide (video)
Supreme Court judges are supposed to be some of the sagest dudes and ladies around, but even they can't agree on which e-reading device is best. Amazon's multimillion-selling Kindle is the weapon of choice for newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan, however old pro Justice Antonin Scalia prefers to battle the bulge of briefs using his iPad. Who will prevail in this titanic struggle? Probably good old paper, actually, as both are said to use their electronic devices as supplements to, rather than replacements for, the old fashioned reading method. See the video revealing these shocking facts after the break.
The Lawbringer: Arguing about video games
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? One day, massively multiplayers will be center stage at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We aren't there yet, but one day. Hell, we just got video games as a genre of entertainment on the lips of the Supreme Court justices. I'll talk about the Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA later on, once we've got more to go on than the opening arguments, etc., and give you a rundown in the simplest terms possible about what is being argued over. For now, I'd like to talk about the language of video games being used in the case and get a little ranty about who gets to argue about video games.
Supreme Court declines to hear remote storage DVR appeal, cloud recording is on the way
It seems like Cablevision and others have been trying to roll out "remote storage" network DVRs forever, and now that the Supreme Court has decided against hearing the appeal of the Hollywood studios looking to block it, they should finally be able to deliver as soon as this summer. Of course, there's benefits to having a locally stored copy of I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, but just in case we forgot to queue up a recording, the power went out or suffered some other manner of catastrophe, we'd still have access to all the Lou Diamond Phillips anyone could ask for, and there's really no way the highest court in the land could get in the way of that.
DISH Network can't stop, won't stop fighting TiVo, heads to Supreme Court; your DVR is safe
DISH Network hasn't taken "no" "denied" or "not yours" for an answer before in its battle against TiVo, and it's not going to start now. In a statement, the company expressed its plans to appeal the Federal Circuit's ruling against a rehearing to the Supreme Court. No matter how it ends, customers don't have to worry about jackbooted government agents (or software updates, whatever) stealing their precious DISH DVR functionality, because its "next generation" DVR software has already been downloaded to your box, and does not infringe on any patents. We'll leave this up to the lawyers to fight out (and write amusing disclaimers about), but in the meantime hit the read link to hear DISH's side of things.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Florida Supreme Court orders Jack Thompson not speak directly to them
The Florida Supreme Court has sent out an official STFU to controversial attorney Jack Thompson, who is not allowed to contact them directly ever again and will need to hire his own attorney to communicate with the Court on his behalf. This is an entirely separate matter from Thompson's Florida Bar trial we're currently awaiting a ruling on.GamePolitics has the Court's full ruling regaling the numerous abuses by Thompson like submitting pornographic materials, engaging in a "relentless and frivolous pursuit for vindication of his claim that he is being victimized by The Florida Bar," and "continued inability to maintain a minimum standard of decorum and respect for the judicial system to which all litigants, and especially attorneys, must adhere." That's not all, since the ruling Thompson has filed two new motions with the Court, which would technically put him in contempt at this very moment.[Thanks to all who sent this in]
SCOTUS hearing milestone LG v. Quanta patent suit arguments
True to its word, the US Supreme Court has started to hear arguments in one of those LG vs Quanta patent suits we've been following, with its eventual decision expected to have major effects on the rights of patent holders. Specifically, LG is arguing that since chipsets sold by Intel to Quanta use licensed manufacturing techniques and employ non-Intel components, Quanta also owes LG compensation as per its original agreement with Intel. Pretty confusing, we agree, but the Court's final decision -- expected in June -- promises to clear up once and for all what has admittedly become a legal gray area concerning so-called "exhausted" patents.
Sprint hits up Vonage for another $80 million
Vonage, everyone's favorite "gettin' sued by The Man" company has taken another beating in the Sprint-Nextel patent suit, agreeing to settle the case and license the telco's internet-calling technology for the tidy sum of $80 million. This comes hot on the heels of last month's ruling, which stipulated that Vonage was to pay $69.5 million to Sprint over six patents which the mobile phone company says it had infringed. "We are pleased to resolve our dispute with Sprint and enter into a productive future relationship," said Sharon O'Leary, General Counsel for Vonage, though it's possible she wasn't as ecstatic as that quote would have you believe. This is just another money-siphoning event for the VoIP company, which in March was hit up for $66 million from Verizon for illegally using some of its patents. If you're keeping count at home, that's $215.5 million paid out. If this keeps up, they may not even be able to afford those snappy commercials anymore. [Warning: read link requires subscription]
Supreme Court to hear LG vs. Quanta patent case
It looks like LG and Qaunta's ongoing patent squabble is headed for the big time, with Reuters now reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to step in and sort things out. This is not, however, the DVD-related LG vs. Quanta case that was filed back in July, but rather an entirely different LG vs. Quanta case that ultimately found the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling against LG, only to have that ruling later overturned by a federal appeals court in July of 2006. According to Reuters, this particular case centers on the touchy issue of whether patent-holders can demand royalties from multiple companies during the manufacturing process -- a patent trail that's also caused a range of other manufacturers including Bizcom, Compal and Scepter to be roped into the case. If all goes as planned, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case "early next year," with a decision "likely" by the end of June.
Standoff over breathalyzer source code in DUI case
Not too long ago, we reported on a case brought to the Minnesota Supreme Court wherein a defendant in a DUI case asked (and was allowed) to view the source code of the breathalyzer machine which was used on him. Well, there's a new chapter in this book, it appears, as Minnesota authorities have missed the deadline for handing over the code to defense attorneys, thus dramatically increasing the chances that the defendant will be getting his case dismissed. Apparently, the Minnesota state public safety commissioner would not supply the source code, and the Department of Public Safety offered no explanation for the refusal. The state previously argued that it doesn't have the rights to hand over the data, as it is actually the copyrighted property of CMI -- the company who manufactures the machines. CMI has not been forthcoming with the source code in the past, leading to blunted or thrown out cases, though Court judges say the state must do whatever it takes to procure the software, even if it means suing CMI. A court hearing scheduled for September 19th will likely decide the defendant's fate, though we doubt this is the last we've heard of this case.
Judges fighting litigation with Supreme Court's "obvious" patent ruling
You might recall that the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which loosened the definition of "obvious" as applied to patent interpretation, saying that if a person of ordinary skill could "fit the teaching of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle," the patent is obvious and unenforceable. That decision, which has been called the most important patent ruling in decades, is starting to affect several longstanding patent disputes, most notably a case brought against Real Networks in 2003 by a company called Friskit. In the first instance of a judge applying the new rule, Friskit's patents have been deemed unenforceable as obvious, a change from an earlier ruling allowing the case to go forward. Friskit is of course considering an appeal, but we wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of these suits decided early on the basis of obviousness.[Via TechDirt]
Vonage sees hope in Supreme Court patent crackdown
Still consumed in a bitter fight for its very survival, embattled VoIP provider Vonage -- recently granted an eleventh-hour pardon from that permanent injunction -- has announced that it will attempt to leverage Monday's landmark Supreme Court decision in seeking a completely new trial. In what is widely seen as both a blow to patent trolls as well as a tough new barrier in the patent application process, the Court ruled that one auto parts manufacturer had not infringed upon another's intellectual property in designing a new gas pedal, because the original pedal was merely an improvement on older models and should not have been granted a patent in the first place. Under this new, looser definition of "obviousness," argues Vonage, the Verizon patents in question would also be deemed upgrades of existing technology at the time they were issued -- and therefore invalid. It remains to be seen whether the appeals court will agree, grant the recently-reorganized company a new trial, and prolong this soap opera for several months or more, but what is clear from recent Court activity (including a Microsoft victory over AT&T) is that the days of a rubber-stamping patent office may be numbered, and that the NTP's and OPTi's of the world had better find a new way to pay the bills. Read - Vonage Read - Supreme Court decision
