USSupremeCourt
Latest
Supreme Court shuts down location loophole for patent suits
Patent trolls have had it pretty easy lately, especially in East Texas. A 2016 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed patent suits anywhere a defendant company's products are sold. The Eastern District of Texas has become a favorite of high-tech patent lawsuits thanks to its rapid litigation timetable and plaintiff-friendly rulings. The US Supreme court today may have put an end to such free-range suit practices, however. The justices involved in the patent case between TC Heartland and Kraft Foods ruled unanimously that patent suits can only be filed in courts located where the target company is headquartered.
What you need to know about Google's battle with Oracle over Android
Two of the world's most powerful companies are engaged in a legal battle that has its roots in the world's most popular mobile operating system: Android. Google is playing defendant, while Oracle is laying claim to a crucial set of code in the foundation of Android. Doesn't ring any bells? That's likely due to the fact that this dispute goes back four years. Just this week, Google filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to decide once and for all which company is in the right. So, what are these two internet giants fighting about? The short answer is Java, which Oracle owns. The real answer, of course, is far more complex
Google wants to bring its Android copyright battle to the US Supreme Court
Google and Oracle are still arguing over code at the foundation of Google's mobile operating system, Android. Google this week filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, which appealed a lower court's ruling that Oracle can legally copyright foundational code. The decisions have gone back and forth over the course of the last four years: First a judge in California ruled in favor of Google; then an appeals court ruled in favor of Oracle; and now Google's pushing for the Supreme Court to get involved. But what are the two internet giants even arguing about? At the heart of Android are a set of Java APIs that Oracle is claiming aren't available for commercial use without a licensing fee (approximately $1 billion). Google argues that the API code is functional -- not a "creative work" -- and therefore isn't copyrightable. The case is, of course, far more complex than our explanation, but that's the big picture (our own Chris Velazco goes into far more background detail right here).
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.
Ahead of Supreme Court trial, Aereo opens lobbying and advocacy site
The United States Department of Justice says that streaming TV service Aereo is violating copyright law. Aereo, unsurprisingly, disagrees. In five days, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides. The former has already made its case to the Supreme Court in a filing; today, Aereo fights back with its own lobbying effort: a website named "Protect My Antenna" that both makes arguments for Aereo's position and compiles various legal documents for the public to read. "We remain steadfast in our conviction that Aereo's cloud-based antenna and DVR technology falls squarely within the law," Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia said in an email to users announcing the site.
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.
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]
US Supreme Court strikes down California law, says video games are protected as free speech
It's already been found unconstitutional by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court of the United States has finally weighed in on the infamous California state law that sought to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. In a seven-to-two ruling on the Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association case, the Supreme Court said that video games are indeed protected as free speech under the First Amendment, and noted that under the constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority." Inevitable, perhaps, but still a fairly historic day or the video game industry -- and one that we're guessing will be a bit more positively received than a certain other milestone involving violent video games this year. You can find the complete ruling in PDF form at the source link below.
