supreme court
Latest
Supreme Court unanimously rules that software patents can't cover abstract ideas
From now on companies will have to be a little more specific when filing software patents. The United States Supreme Court today ruled in favor of CLS Bank, a company that was accused by Alice Corporation of violating several of its patents relating to computer-based trading systems. Twice lower courts have found that Alice's patents were invalid and now the highest court in the land has settled the dispute once and for all. In one of the two group opinions supporting the unanimous decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
Supreme Court will decide when threats made on social media become criminal
We're still waiting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about Aereo and warrantless cellphone searches, but in the meantime there are more cases to be heard! Including Anthony Elonis v. United States, which the highest court in the nation just agreed to hear. The decision will end up setting a precedent for when violent comments made online cross from protected speech to criminal threats. In 2011, Elonis was sentenced to nearly four years in jail for posting status updates and self-penned lyrics on his Facebook page wishing death on his wife, the police and others.
Canadian Supreme Court rules internet anonymity is key to privacy
Congratulations, citizens of Canada, it's your God-given right to travail the internet as UrTheWurst420 hurling sexually graphic insults at children singing pop songs on YouTube. And, unless the police get a warrant, they won't be able to tie that account to your actual identity. In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court of Canada found that online anonymity is a vital component of personal privacy. The ruling came down following the case of Matthew Spencer, who was tried and convicted for possessing child pornography in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Law enforcement asked Shaw Communications for information on a particular user, including the name and address on the account, which would now require a search warrant to obtain. The evidence in this particular case was allowed to stand as the court said police believed they were acting lawfully, but future requests for information would have to go through the courts first.
Engadget Podcast 394 - 4.25.14
Ben and Terrence are serving up a big bureaucratic burrito this week, chock full of net neutrality, legalese and corporate self-interest. To help you digest this gut-buster of a mind meal, we've enlisted Engadget's Editor-in-chief and self-proclaimed armchair attorney Michael Gorman. It's refreshing to know that the Supreme Court is having an intelligent discussion about Aereo's conflict with the big wigs in broadcast TV, but the outcome is anyone's guess at this point. As always, laws are laden with doublespeak and nebulous terms, leaving lots of wiggle room for greedy corporations that favor the bottom line over customers desires. Please join us for this week's lawyerly edition of the Engadget Podcast. Hosts: Terrence O'Brien, Ben Gilbert Guest: Michael Gorman Producer: Jon Turi Hear the podcast:
Activision to appeal halted Vivendi deal on October 10
Activision Blizzard is set to appeal the Delaware Supreme Court's decision to halt its $8.2 billion share purchase from controlling corporation Vivendi, Reuters reports. Activision aims to buy itself back from Vivendi through share purchases spearheaded by the company itself and an investor group led by Activision CEO Bobby Kotick. The combined share purchase would reduce Vivendi's current 61 percent stake in Activision to 12 percent, reestablishing Activision as an independent company. Purchase plans were halted last week by the Delaware Supreme Court, citing recent lawsuits over Activision's failure to put the purchase to shareholder vote. Activision will begin its appeal to overturn the decision on October 10.
House bill proposes fines on retail games without ESRB ratings, prohibition of some sales to minors
Bill H.R.287, or the "Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act" as it will likely be more widely known, seeks to accomplish three goals: To make illegal the act of selling or renting video games that have not been evaluated by the ESRB, to legally prohibit the sale of Adults Only/Mature games to anyone under the age of 18/17 respectively, and to institute a fine not in excess of $5,000 in the event of noncompliance.The bill's second and third provisions aside, mandating that all games be rated doesn't sound too wildly outside the scope of reason, save for the fact that the industry's current architecture supports that already. Granted, indie games that end up on Steam or other PC/Mac distribution platforms may not seek out ESRB evaluation, but any game released for any console must have an ESRB rating, as Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft will refuse licensing otherwise.If the rest of what VGREA is attempting to accomplish sounds familiar, it's because the Supreme Court of the United States already declared such legislation unconstitutional way back in June of 2011. So, unless time is cyclical and this bill is actually what the court ruled on in 2011, the chances of this new one getting off the ground are pretty slim.
French Supreme Court orders Google to censor piracy related terms in Instant search and Autocomplete
The French Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that Google must censor terms such as "torrent," "RapidShare," and other phrases that could be related to illegal file sharing. The decision was in response to a case brought by SNEP, a French music industry group, requesting that Google be forced to censor its results and be held accountable for facilitating piracy. The court ruled that the Mountain View company couldn't be held responsible for people's decision to click through to sites containing illegal material. But it reversed a lower court decision, demanding that related terms be removed from its autocomplete database to making finding such content more difficult. Google was understandably disappointed by the ruling, especially since the company already actively blocks some piracy related search terms. But, that apparently wasn't enough for the SNEP. Check out the ruling itself at the more coverage link.
Canadian Supreme Court rules no separate copyright fee for iTunes previews, game downloads
The Canadian Supreme court ruled on two copyright cases that affect music previews in iTunes and video game downloads. According to a report in Paid Content, the Court upheld the Copyright Board's decision that the 30- to 90-second audio previews in iTunes do not constitute a public performance and do not require a copyright payment to the music industry. The Court also reversed a Copyright Board decision that a game download was a public performance of the music in the game and required a separate copyright payment. The Court chastised the music industry for trying to double-dip as game makers already pay fees to include the music in the game. You can read both the iTunes and the video game download descisions on the Supreme Court of Canada's website.
Court refuses request to review Psystar case
You have to give Psystar credit for being tenacious. The Mac clone company spent four years fighting Apple and took its legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court. According to a CNET report, the Supreme Court on Monday refused Psystar's request to review a lower court decision that prevents the company from selling non-Apple hardware with OS X. The decision upholds the original ruling in 2009 which said Psystar "violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works." Apple was awarded a permanent injunction against Psystar and the company was forced to stop selling its Mac clones. This Supreme Court rejection should put an end to litigation between the two companies.
FBI deactivates about 3,000 GPS tracking devices, loses sight of your car
Following a January ruling by the US Supreme Court, the FBI has deactivated some 3,000 GPS units that were potentially infringing on the Fourth Amendment. The decision seems to be making waves in the U.S. Justice Department. Andrew Weissmann, FBI General Counsel, says some of the devices have been difficult to retrieve, as the vehicles they were once tracking now move undetected. The FBI has sought temporary permission to reactivate some of the devices to locate and retrieve the hardware. Weissmann says the FBI is also developing new guidelines regarding the legality of its agent's actions -- from the application and use of tracking devices, to the extent a suspect's garbage can be searched before the agent is committing trespass. In short, the FBI is working really hard not to violate your legal right to privacy. If you happen to find something weird under you car, give 'em a call. They'd probably like it back.
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.
Dutch Supreme Court declares RuneScape theft a real-world crime
Is stealing a virtual good deserving of a real-world criminal sentence? According to a recent ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court, the answer is "yes." The court recently upheld a ruling of a criminal case in which teens attacked another youth and forced him at knifepoint to relinquish his possessions in RuneScape, including an in-game amulet and knife. The incident happened in 2007, and a lower court convicted the two thieves in 2009. One of the defendants then appealed to the country's supreme court on the grounds that the stolen goods "were neither tangible nor material and, unlike for example electricity, had no economic value." However, the judges declared that these virtual items had value because they represented "time and energy invested" to acquire. The thieves were sentenced to 144 hours of community service.
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.
Supreme Court delegates Brown v. EMA expenses ruling to Ninth Circuit
Legal representation ain't cheap, especially when your squad of top-notch lawyers are defending your industry/community's constitutional rights of expression. Apparently, setting legal precedent racks up a $1.4 million tab, and the Entertainment Merchants Association has requested that the bill be covered by the state of California, since they lost and everything. Now that all the fun important history making stuff is over, though, it seems the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than figure out whose millions of dollars belong to which lawyers. As a result, the task of approving/denying the EMA's request has been delegated to the Ninth Circuit Court. Now that we think about it, does California even have $1.4 million to lose at this point? Call us crazy, but dine-and-dashing on the Supreme Court probably isn't possible.
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.
The Lawbringer: The odd future of bill S. 978
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Mathew McCurley takes you through the world running parallel to the games we love and enjoy, 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? The machinima and streaming communities built around World of Warcraft are filled with some of the most talented and creative people in gaming, from awesome musicians to dedicated streamcasters. The first time I ever got to experience the WoW beta back in 2004, I was watching someone stream footage of their human warlock messing up mobs in (if I remember correctly) Westfall. Streaming is beneficial to gaming, MMOs, and e-sports because of video games' competitive nature and spectator-oriented design. You've probably heard of Senate bill S.978 already, most likely from many video game blogs and news outlets or YouTube campaigns fighting against the passage of this bill. Bill S.978 aims to institute a "10 strikes" policy, making the unauthorized streaming of content a felony, resulting in potential jail time. The main purpose of the bill is to strengthen the law and punishments available to organizations such as the MPAA and other content conglomerates to stop illegal streaming of millions upon millions of dollars in stolen entertainment. As is the way of things, gamers might be caught in the crossfire. Some of you fine readers sent me a few messages on Twitter asking me to weigh in on the 10 strikes streaming bill and maybe give a basic analysis of the thing, so I shall oblige. Lawbringer this week is all about the odd future of bill S. 978 and what it could mean for MMOs and WoW.
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.
The Lawbringer: Supreme Court decides Brown v. EMA
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that video games fall under the same First Amendment speech protections as books, movies, music, and art. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, decrying California's attempts to restrict speech as, at the same time, too under-inclusive and too over-inclusive. What does that mean for the video game industry? What does this decision mean for video games in general? Self-regulation, it seems, is doing the job when it comes to keeping parents in charge and violent video games in the hands where they belong. If you have no idea what Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) is about, check out my first Lawbringer feature on the topic as well as Gamasutra's feature, as it is probably the best, concise understanding of the case as it was back in November of 2010. Now, however, we have a decision. After being argued on Nov. 2, 2010, the Supreme Court decided on June 27, 2011, by a vote of 7-2 that the California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.
NMA TV breaks down the Supreme Court game ruling
While we did our best to provide extensive coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on violent video games, all we could really do was write the news and related analysis, which could lead only to the most superficial understanding of the nuances of this precedent-setting decision. To really understand the case, you need to see computer-generated recreations of the justice-versus-justice gunfights that led to this historic decision -- and that's why NMA World Edition is so important. Head past the break and begin your legal education in earnest.
