Court Rules That Woman Wrongfully Placed On No Fly List Should Be Taken Off The List... We Think

from the no-fly dept

We've written a few times about the troubling case of Rahinah Ibrahim, a PhD. student at Stanford who was wrongfully placed on the "no fly" list because (it appears) some clueless law enforcement officials mixed up the names of a networking group of professional Muslims in Malaysia who had returned from work or study in the US and Europe (which she was a part of) and a very, very different terrorist organization. While she had received something of an apology for initially not being allowed to fly to Malaysia (and then allowed to fly), it appeared that her name was then placed on the no fly list, preventing her from ever returning. She was later blocked from even flying back to the US for her lawsuit against the government.

The ruling issued today, and we'd love to tell you what's in it... except for the fact that it's sealed. Judge William Alsup has stated that he believes that the entire order should be made public, but that the US government is fighting that. So, for now, the order is under seal until April 15, while Homeland Security is supposed to agree to what it will allow to be released in a redacted version. However, in the meantime, Judge Alsup has released a "public notice and summary" of the findings of fact -- basically revealing what he can of the order. Many of the important details are still missing, but it certainly sounds like Ibrahim has mostly succeeded in the case. Alsup notes that "some but not all of the relief" sought by Ibrahim has been granted. And this includes having her name scrubbed from the no fly list:

Once a plaintiff shows concrete, reviewable adverse government action has occurred, and, as here, shows that the action resulted from an error by the government, then the plaintiff is entitled by due process to a post-deprivation remedy that requires the government to cleanse and/or correct its lists and records of the mistaken information and to certify under oath that such correction(s) have been made. The government’s administrative remedies fall short of such relief and do not supply sufficient due process. In light of the confusion caused by the government’s mistake, such cleansing-certification relief is ordered in this case. Also, the government is ordered to disclose to plaintiff her current status on (or off) the no-fly list (without prejudice to future adjustments based on new information). In this connection, the government concedes that plaintiff is not a threat to our national security.

That appears to suggest that the government ought to remove her from the no fly list and let her know that she's now off the list. But it's not entirely clear that's the case. In theory, they could inform her that she's still on the list as well.

On the later decision by the US government to deny her a visa, the court orders DHS to provide an actual reason in the law for the denial. It would appear that the previous denials did not specify one of the "nine subsections" in the law for which a visa can be denied, and Alsup has ordered DHS to "remedy" that. It also hints very, very strongly (as was pretty clear during the trial), that in refusing her visa, she was told that she was not eligible for a waiver when, in fact, she was. Thus, he orders the government to properly let her know that she can apply for a waiver... but notes that the court cannot review the eventual decision as to whether or not she's granted a visa.

Nothing is said in all of this about the later actions by DHS to block Ibrahim's daughter, a US citizen, from flying to the US to testify in the case. Though, perhaps there is something about that in the sealed documents.

All in all, it appears that Ibrahim has mostly prevailed here, but the details could be rather important. And, it also appears that even with all of this, the court may be quite limited in how much it can force the government to take someone who has been falsely placed on the no fly list, off of it. Hopefully, the full decision will provide greater clarity.

Filed Under: dhs, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, sealed order, william alsup

Judge In No Fly List Trial Won't Let Plaintiff Or Her Lawyers See The Evidence

from the due-process! dept

We've written quite a few times about the lawsuit brought by Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, testing the legality of the US's no fly list, which she was put on in what appears to be a massive mistake by Homeland Security, which they've proceeded to make worse every chance they get. Being on the no fly list also appears to have made the State Department deny her a visa to come to her own trial, and then DHS directly got involved to block Ibrahim's daughter from flying to the US to be a witness, and then directly lying about it to the court.

Edward Hasbrouck at the Identity Project, who has been doing a ton of excellent reporting on the case, has the latest, noting that the Judge, William Alsup, has now denied both Dr. Ibrahim and her lawyers from being able to see the classified evidence being used against her. This seems like a generally questionable move -- especially since Alsup himself has repeatedly questioned why certain information in the case was secret in the first place. But, in the end, this appears to mainly be a process issue. Dr. Ibrahim was told she could see the evidence if she was present in the courtroom, but since the State Department denied her a visa... she wasn't able to be there.

But, both her lawyers and Dr. Ibrahim herself knew all of this for a while, and could have (and probably should have) sought clearance to view classified documents. That's not to say it would have absolutely happened, but they didn't go through the basic process, and Judge Alsup has said that it's a bit late to suddenly ask.

Plaintiff's counsel could have sought clearance to view classified information well in advance of trial. Plaintiff's counsel did not. Instead, plaintiff's counsel waited until after trial to request an order for access to classified information. This order will not permit plaintiff's counsel to circumvent the usual classified clearance process at this late date when such unreasonable conditions are requested.

The "unreasonable conditions" included a request to discuss the classified information with Dr. Ibrahim, though, again, she also did not seek clearance. Now, there's a reasonable argument about whether or not the government ever would have allowed any of them to get clearance and to look at the evidence -- but not even seeking to go through the process appears to be a big procedural mistake, cutting off the opportunity to legally challenge those decisions.

Filed Under: classified evidence, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, william alsup

Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court

from the incredible dept

On Friday the case against the US government, brought by Rahinah Ibrahim over her being placed on the "no fly list," officially concluded with closing arguments, but that may have been the least interesting part of everything. Apparently, the day got off to a rocky start, after Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team for their actions in court, specifically concerning "misrepresentations" made to the court. It seems clear that this was mainly about the DOJ denying that the US government (mainly DHS) had done anything to prevent Ibrahim's daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal, an American citizen, from coming to the US to be a witness in the trial. As you may recall, on Monday it had come out that she had been denied in her attempt to board her flight in Malaysia, and the DOJ claimed, flat out, that Kamal had merely missed her flight and rebooked on another flight.

It appears that none of that was true.

Instead, while Kamal had been rebooked by her travel agent earlier in the week to a different flight (because Expedia informed her that her original flight was full and she wouldn't be able to travel on it), she arrived at the airport with nearly 3 hours to spare for her own flight, and was then denied the ability to board. There was a lot of back and forth, but eventually she obtained the email that had first been sent to Philippines Airlines (she was flying from Malaysia to the Philippines and then on to San Francisco), warning that Kamal was "a possible no board request." While that's not a full on "denial" it was enough to have the airline deny her passage, and clearly shows that, contrary to the DOJ's claims, DHS specifically had targeted Kamal and was hinting very strongly to airlines not to let her fly. It seems unlikely that they ever expected that email to get out. Either way, Kamal had spent nearly $2,000 of her own money on the original flight, and noted in her own deposition that she was unable to afford another immediate flight to the US (especially given that it's holiday travel season).

Judge Alsup held a closed hearing about all of this, so it's not entirely clear what he's going to do, though from the public statements he has made to date, he did not appear to be happy about all of this. During the closing arguments -- some of which involved kicking the public out -- he even noted how ridiculous it was that they had to have a closed session since he didn't think any of the "sensitive security information" was really that sensitive. He also challenged the government's argument that they can properly review people who "appeal" their status without ever letting anyone know if or why they're on the list. From Edward Hasbrouck's transcript of the exchange:

JUDGE ALSUP: That's just going back to the same sources that were wrong in the first place, and of course they are going to say, “We were right the first time.”

That troubles me.

Do you know what happened to Robert Oppenheimer?

He was denied his clearance. It was totally unjust. The information was bogus. They suspected him of being a Communist, but that was wrong.

It was a low point for America, to do that wrongly to an American hero.

You’re not seeing the other side of what can happen.

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: TRIP is a continually improving process…

JUDGE ALSUP: We know that there’s going to be mistakes in your system, in any system, and people are going to get hurt.

What do we need? Should there be some sort of follow-up FBI interview to find out if there is contrary evidence?

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: When a TRIP letter is sent, the recipient is offered the possibility of review by a Court of Appeals. Review by a Court of Appeals would reveal any improper basis for the decision.

JUDGE ALSUP: How could the Court of Appeals tell that from the file it is handed up by the agency?

Even if it includes the derogatory information, how is the Court of Appeals going to know from looking at the face of the document whether it’s true?

Couldn’t there be some process where you tell the person the nature of the allegations (”You contributed money to Al Qaeda”) without revealing the specific sources or methods for the information containing those allegations?

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: We can say more in closed session, but we can’t do that.

The government also appeared to admit in its closing that the original no fly determination on Dr. Ibrahim was a mistake, but then seems to bend over backwards not to take responsibility for all the additional fallout from that incorrect designation -- including the repeated denial of a visa to go back to the US (even for this very trial).

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, raihan mustafa kamal, william alsup

Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Yesterday, we wrote about the bizarre happenings in the lawsuit filed by Rahinah Ibrahim for placing her on the no fly list without any kind of explanation or due process (and no way to get off). The focus of that post was on the government apparently placing Ibrahim's daughter -- a key witness expected to testify in the case -- on the no fly list as well to block her from coming, and then insisting it did no such thing, only to have Malaysia Airlines provide the notice from the US government telling them not to let the daughter board her flight. However, we also mentioned that the DOJ lawyers were trying to insist that all sorts of publicly available information was actually "sensitive security information" (SSI) and Judge William Alsup blew up at them, calling such a claim "ridiculous."

It appears that the DOJ lawyers didn't get the message from Alsup on Monday. On Wednesday, it continued its campaign of insisting that publicly available information was secret. While much of the testimony on Wednesday did cover secret matters, leading to the courtroom having to be cleared, Ibrahim's lawyers were able to have Jeffrey Kahn testify about how the no fly list basically violated every concept of basic due process. Kahn is the author of Mrs. Shipley's Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists and is clearly an expert on the subject. However, the government apparently kept objecting to his testimony, making him explain what public source provided the information he was describing.

As recounted by Edward Hasbrouck at the Identity Project:

At one point, in response to such an objection, Prof. Kahn identified the source for one of his statements as being FBI watchlist guidelines released by the FBI itself to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and posted on the EPIC website. Those documents showed that the mere opening of an investigation was itself deemed to be sufficient grounds for placing a person on a watchlist, without the need to evaluate whether there had been any factual predicate for the opening of the investigation. This contradicted the government’s claims about the existence of threshhold evidentiary criteria for watchlist decisions.

The government’s lawyers tried to argue that despite having been released by the FBI itself in response to a FOIA request, and having been publicly available for years on the EPIC website, these documents couldn’t be discussed publicly.

Judge Alsup overruled their objection. “This is America. You can’t take something that is in the public domain and make it a secret. If you wanted to shut down that website, you should have done so.”

Well, that's never really stopped the government from trying. Still, you'd think that the DOJ lawyers would have gotten the message by now.

Filed Under: doj, jeffrey kahn, no fly list, public domain, rahinah ibrahim, sensitive security information, william alsup

Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So

from the shameless dept

As you my have heard, there's a trial going on here in San Francisco about the legality of the complete lack of any sort of due process concerning the US's "no fly" list. The NY Times has a good background article on the case, which notes that somewhere around 700,000 people appear to be on the list, where there's basically no oversight of the list and no recourse if you happen to be placed on the list. This lawsuit, by Rahinah Ibrahim (who had been a Stanford PhD student) is challenging that.

In that case, a Stanford University Ph.D. student named Rahinah Ibrahim was prevented from boarding a flight at San Francisco International Airport in 2005, and was handcuffed and detained by the police. Ultimately, she was allowed to fly to Malaysia, her home country, but she has been unable to return to the United States because the State Department revoked her student visa.

According to court filings, two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation visited Ms. Ibrahim a week before her trip and asked about her religious activities (she is Muslim), her husband and what she might know of a Southeast Asian terrorist organization. A summary of that interview obtained by Ms. Ibrahim’s lawyer includes a code indicating that the visit was related to an international terrorism investigation, but it is not clear what other evidence — like email or phone records — was part of that inquiry.

The Identity Project blog is covering the trial, which kicked off earlier this week with a ridiculous situation, highlighted by BoingBoing. Apparently, one of the people set to testify in the case, Ibrahim's oldest daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal (an American citizen, born in the US), was blocked from boarding her flight to the US to appear at the trial, and told that she was on the no fly list as well. Kamal, a lawyer, was an eye witness to her mother being blocked from boarding her flight. The US knew that Kamal was set to testify and from all indications, in a move that appears extremely petty, appears to have purposely blocked her from flying to the US. Kamal was directly told by the airline that DHS had ordered them not to let Kamal to board. The airline even gave her a phone number for a Customs and Border Patrol office in Miami, telling her to call that concerning her not being able to board.

Judge William Alsup, who is known for his rather no-nonsense approach in court (and his willingness to dig very deep into understanding the issues), quickly noted that this apparent blocking of Kamal was ridiculous, and demanded that the government explain what happened. When they insisted they knew nothing about it, Alsup wasn't satisfied. Nor was he satisfied with the story they eventually came back with. As Edward Hasbrouck at the Identity Project reports:

Judge Alsup ordered the government defendants’ lawyers to investigate and report back. “You’ve got ten lawyers over there on your side of the courtroom. You can send one of them out in the hall to make a phone call and find out what’s going on.”

At the end of the first day’s session of the trial (more on that below), the governments’ lawyers told Judge Alsup that they had made inquiries and had been told that “the plaintiff’s daughter just missed her flight” and was rebooked on a flight tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.

Needless to say, that story strains credulity. If Ms. Mustafa Kamal had merely missed her flight, why would she have been given a CBP phone number in Miami to call for information about what had happened? The governments’ lawyers insisted that, “That’s what we have been told”, but Judge Alsup wasn’t satisfied.

“We may have to have a separate evidentiary hearing about this,” Judge Alsup said, and ordered the defendants to provide further information tomorrow... “I want to know whether the government did something to obstruct a witness, a U.S. citizen.”

That was Monday. Tuesday morning, Ibrahim's lawyer proved that the DOJ was flat out lying the day before by presenting the "no-board" instructions that DHS had sent to Malaysia Airlines to the court:

“None of that was true,” Ms. Pipkin told the court this morning. “She didn’t miss the flight. She was there in time to check in. She has not been rebooked on another flight.” And most importantly, it was because of actions by the DHS — one of the defendants in Dr. Ibrahim’s lawsuit — that Ms. Mustafa Kamal was not allowed to board her flight to SFO to attend and testify at her mother’s trial.

Ms. Pipkin said that Ms. Mustafa Kamal had sent her a copy of the “no-board” instructions which the DHS gave to Malaysia Airlines, and which the airline gave to Ms. Mustafa Kamal to explain as much as it knew about why it was not being allowed to transport her. Ms. Pipkin handed Judge William Alsup a copy of the DHS “no-board” instructions to Malaysia Airlines regarding Ms. Mustafa Kamal.

As Hasbrouck notes, the airline deserves kudos for handing over that info. Many airlines would simply keep it a secret. Judge Alsup, however, will not consider the document yet, noting that there isn't evidence to its authenticity and it's not part of a sworn record. Thus, he said that when Kamal arrives in SF to testify, that can be a part of her testimony. While the lawyer pointed out that Kamal was hesitant to buy another ticket if she wouldn't be able to board again, Judge Alsup made it clear that she needs to come, and also appears to have made it quite clear to the DHS that if she is blocked again, there will be consequences:

“Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ” And Mr Freeborne, with disingenuous faux-solicitude, claimed that the government is “willing to do whatever we can to facilitate” Ms. Mustafa Kamal’s ability to board a flight to the U.S.

Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven allegations or unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”

The report from Monday also describes other ridiculous claims by the DOJ, including trying to argue that information that was publicly available could not be included in the case because it was "sensitive security information" (SSI). Once again, Judge Alsup saw through the DOJ's bullshit and called them out on it:

That’s ridiculous. Are you saying that if the president makes a speech, TSA can retroactively make it a secret what he said? It cannot be the law that something that is publicly known later becomes hidden…

Here’s my ruling: If it’s in a document that’s SSI, but it’s also available from some other publicly available source, it’s public information, and cannot be withheld from the public in this courtroom…. The government is taking such an unreasonable position on how to run a trial. If it’s been in the public domain for years, you’re barred from making the argument that the plaintiff’s counsel cannot “disclose” it….

Trials are important. Trials are supposed to be public.

I want to categorically reject one thing: If information is publicly available in some other way, the government does not have the right to retroactively clamp it down and remove it from the public record. Even if it could have been protected as SSI within the government, if the plaintiff obtains this information independently, the government can’t clamp that down.

The plaintiff has the right to prove her case. If she can prove it through publicly available admissible evidence, she can do so even if that information is also included in internal government documents designated as SSI.

That’s the way I feel. That’s the law, that ought to be the law, and that’s the only way to run this country. That’s my ruling, and if the government disagrees, I invite you to take an emergency writ to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Judge Alsup is not impressed with the US government's actions so far. The notes from day two in the trial provide a lot more background on what happened. It would appear that the lawyers for Ibrahim are making a (rather compelling, from the evidence) case that bumbling US law enforcement officials confused two very different Malaysian organizations with similar names: Jemaah Islamiyah Malaysia, which is a terrorist organization, and Jamaah Islah Malaysia, "a non-profit professional networking group for Muslims who have returned to Malaysia after post-secondary schooling in the U.S. and Europe." The two organizations are, as you would imagine, quite different. Ibrahim is involved in the latter, and has no connection to the former, but it sounds like the FBI agents who interviewed her were unaware of the difference.

The further details of Ibrahim's life, her arrest and treatment, all suggest a situation where US law enforcement totally screwed up, and seriously mucked up someone's life -- and now they seem to be doing everything possible to avoid taking responsibility for it.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, raihan mustafa kamal, william alsup

Judge Takes On Patent Troll With 'Sham Employee'; Forces Troll To Defend Practice Before A Jury

from the go-get-'em dept

One of the best "scenes" in This American Life's awesome "When Patents Attack" episode from a couple of years ago, was when the reporters went to a building in East Texas that was "home" to a bunch of patent trolls, and tried knocking on doors, noting that there appeared to be no lights on in any "office" nor any indication that anyone ever actually came to those offices. It would appear that at least one judge is recognizing that setting up sham companies to shake others down via patents may have some legal issues. Judge William Alsup is no stranger to getting a detailed understanding of what's really going on in intellectual property cases. After all he's the same judge who has experience writing code who handled the massive Oracle v. Google patent and copyright case, in which he showed a thorough understanding of the underlying issues.

So it's not surprising to find out that he's taking on a patent trolling operation, in part calling attention to their "sham" operation and "sham" employee. Alsup was clearly influenced by the NY Times op-ed that the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Randall Rader co-wrote a few months ago, arguing that district court judges should look for patent trolls that are abusing the system. Judge Alsup quotes that op-ed at length, and then digs in to show exactly how the patent trolling operation Network Protection Sciences works, along with various related patent troll shell companies set up by "Innovation Management Sciences LLC." These were all put together (like so many patent trolling firms) by some patent lawyers who realized it was more lucrative to become patent trolls themselves. In this case, the lawyers are California-based Rakesh Ramde and Wilfred Lam. As Alsup notes, they've filed at least a dozen lawsuits against at least 40 companies.

The whole ruling is well worth reading (it's only 14 pages), as it details the basic sham setup of one of those "empty offices" in east Texas. In this case, the legal issue concerns the timing of the transfer of the patent being used in this case (against security firm Fortinet) between different trolling entities (all under the IMS banner). And one of the things that comes out is that the "single employee" of NPS is listed as Gregory Cuke, who is described as the "director of business development." Back in reality, Alsup points out that in Cuke's deposition, he admits that he's not actually the director of business development, but is actually a real estate broker for various office buildings -- and is the landlord for the nearly empty one-room "office" that NPS claims is its home base. But, every so often, he's asked to sign various legal documents and he does so.

NPS has repeatedly represented to the Court that it has a single employee, Gregory Cuke, its "director of business development" (see, Dkt. No. 65 at 1). The record, however, shows that this individual has no actual involvement with NPS day-to-day business, even assuming that any such business takes place. Although Cuke agrees he has performed a few token hours of work for NPS, he denies being its "director of business development," denies having any knowledge of what NPS's day-to-day business is, and denies being an NPS employee (Cuke Dep. 11, 20-21, 38, 56-57). Aside from his alleged employment, Cuke is simply NPS's landlord: Cuke is a real estate broker for commercial properties in east Texas and nuns a company that subleases a one-room office to NPS (Cuke Dep. 31).

NPS has repeatedly represented that it is ''headquartered'' in Suite 302 at 3301 West Marshall Avenue in Longview, Texas. According to Cuke, however, this "headquarters" office is a tiny, windowless, file-cabinet room, without a phone or even chairs (Cuke Dep. 62, 66). There are no on-site employees. The rent for the office space is $325 per month; NPS subleases the space for $100 per month from another entity owned by Ramde and Lam that appears to share the same address (id. at 64; Ramde Decl. Exh. 2). The office contains a single computer which Cuke has never seen turned on (Cuke Dep. at 62).

While Alsup agrees to hold a trial concerning the key issue of whether or not NPS actually owned the patent at the date of the lawsuit (because Cuke hadn't yet signed the sale-and-assignment agreement finalizing the deal at the time of the filing), he does start to ask some significant questions about NPS and what Ramde and Lam are up to, exploring whether or not NPS is engaged in litigation misconduct. First, Alsup dings NPS (and specifically Ramde and Lam) for "stonewalling and obfuscation" in basically trying to do everything possible to avoid handing over the sale-and-assignment agreement which was signed too late. Alsup details numerous steps that were taken to avoid revealing what happened and concludes "NPS, Ramde and Lam engaged in an extensive cover-up."

Then we get to the problem of the sham company:

Second, this order finds that NPS manufactured venue in Texas via a sham. Ramde and Lam rented a windowless file-cabinet room with no employees in Texas and held it out as an ongoing business concern to the Texas judge. They also held out Cuke as its "director of business development" but this too was a sham, a contrivance to manufacture venue in the Eastern District of Texas.

To create the impression that NPS is something other than a patent troll, NPS and its principals have repeatedly made misleading statements to Fortinet and to the Court. For example, in an (unsworn) declaration filed while the action was still in Texas, Ramde stated that "[i]n the business judgment of Network Protection Sciences . . . its relationship with Greg Cuke [is an] important asset[] of the company . . . [that is] facilitated by its presence in Texas" (Dkt. No. 65-36 1] 10). Yet alleged director Cuke later admitted in his deposition that he was only NPS's "director of business development" for litigation purposes and had no knowledge of the day-to-day activities of the entity (Cuke Dep. 38-39, 56-5 7). No such "important asset" ever existed. It was a sham.

But, then he goes further in noting that it appeared that Ramde and Lam were abusing the court system with their trolling:

Third, two prior orders herein have already found that NPS has engaged in unreasonable and improper litigation behavior. One found that NPS asserted an unreasonable number of patent claims with the effect of multiplying the burden of litigation. It held that asserting more than fifty patent claims against Fortinet was "an unreasonable burden for NPS to place on its adversary" (Dkt. No.197 at 3). Despite this admonition, this behavior by NPS has continued in the form of sandbagging with newly-produced documents and infringement contentions that attack over 70 Fortinet products without supplying claim charts. The other order found that NPS's counsel have played fast and loose with the rules for being admitted to practice pro hac vice in this district. It held that an attorney for NPS had violated our local rules 11-1 and 11-3 by appearing i11 three depositions prior to filing his pro hac vice application and denied his application (Dkt. No. 211).

Alsup notes that dismissing a case for litigation misconduct is a "severe sanction" which he's not yet ready to take, even though "this is a close case." However, he notes that "attorney's fees caused by and traceable to the misconduct are likely to be imposed but that remedy will be held in abeyance to see how well both sides behave from here on out." In other words, the lawyers are on very thin ice. Alsup then hints at letting the jury hear about the "sham venue, shame employees, and the cover-up" as the case goes to trial. However, as noted at the link above, at the hearing, Alsup made it quite clear that since this case is going to trial, NPS is going to have to show how their actions were a legitimate business practice -- something they may have difficulty doing.

In other words, while you might consider it a "victory" for NPS that the case wasn't dismissed outright by Judge Alsup, it would appear that he's actually just handing NPS a pretty long rope with which to hang itself, and making it clear that they better be straight with the court (i.e., start making that noose) or he'll make them pay attorney's fees (which may need to be paid anyway). It would appear that Ramde and Lam are between a rock and a hard place, where, as of right now they're going to need to defend the whole sham setup and the coverup to a jury and try to make it sound like a legitimate practice.

THE COURT: You're on the verge of losing this entire motion, and going to the Federal Circuit, with a lot of money against you. So if you want this to live to fight another day, you ought to listen to me for a moment. The best you can hope for is that the jury's going to decide this; but for the jury to decide the sham nature of this closet in Texas, they're going to have to understand why somebody would want to do this. So an expert is somebody you need to have explain it. This is going to be part of your case.

[COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor, it's not.

THE COURT: Well, then, it will be part of their case.

[COUNSEL]: Why is that relevant to the issue of patent infringement?

THE COURT: If we're going to try ownership here, and all of these issues about whether or not this guy was a sham, or not, the jury's got to understand the background of why it was or was not a sham.

[COUNSEL]: Well, Your Honor --

THE COURT: You're not going to be able to skate by, with -- beat this motion, and then get it somehow excluded at trial. For goodness' sakes.

[COUNSEL]: Well, how is it relevant to the issues that are at trial?

THE COURT: You've got to prove ownership. It's your burden.

[COUNSEL]: And you prove ownership by an assignment; not by -- not by showing --

THE COURT: It may not be valid, Counsel.

[COUNSEL]: But that will be resolved.

THE COURT: No, it's not going to be resolved. You're asking that it be resolved by the jury. I heard you say it a moment ago.

[COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Well, maybe now you're taking it back. It's on the record. I heard it. So on appeal you can make that point; but this jury is going to hear all of this stuff about the closet. And you're going to have to explain why "Mr. Sham" was signing these documents.

Mr. Sham? Ouch. I imagine the actual trial on this will be worth watching.

Filed Under: east texas, patent trolls, patents, rakesh ramde, sham, wilfred lam, william alsup
Companies: fortinet, innovation management sciences, network proteciton sciences

Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims

from the a-bit-narrowly-focused dept

Well, well. A few weeks ago, the jury in the Google/Oracle lawsuit ruled that Google infringed on a very small amount of Java API, but as we noted it was still an open question (and one for the judge to rule on) whether or not APIs were even eligible to be covered by copyright. In the second phase of the case, the jury completely rejected the idea that Google had infringed on Oracle's patents. So all that left was the 37 APIs. And that tiny "win" for Oracle is now gone as well, as the judge has ruled that those particular APIs are not covered by copyright:

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been done by re-arranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages (even if the same names had been used). In this sense, there were many ways to group the methods yet still duplicate the same range of functionality.

But the names are more than just names — they are symbols in a command structure wherein the commands take the form java.package.Class.method() Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.

As some have pointed out the ruling is somewhat narrowly focused just on these 37 APIs, but the principles involved in why those 37 APIs are not copyrightable certainly will apply to plenty of other APIs as well. The ruling itself (embedded below) is pretty thorough and detailed. We had noted earlier that Judge Alsup had admitted that he'd learned to code Java in order to better understand the case (and that he'd had a history of knowing other coding languages as well) -- and it shows. Rather than using braindead broad analogies that don't make much sense, as we see all too often in court rulings, Alsup gets to the heart of the matter and clearly understands what an API is and how it works. His ruling is actually a decent primer on some parts of code for those who have never coded.

From that, Alsup points out just how ridiculous this entire case has been -- and specifically notes that he's explaining the level of ridiculousness of Oracle's position for the benefit of the appeals court who will surely hear this case once Oracle appeals (and which almost certainly will be staffed with judges not nearly as clued-in as Judge Alsup).

Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.

He goes on to explain not just how insignificant the situation was, but he details how it happened and why it's crazy to consider it worthy of a copyright infringement suit. It's a pretty complete smackdown of Oracle's position.

Again, it is quite likely that Oracle will appeal, even though this ruling is so firm it might be smarter for Oracle to issue a giant apology to the tech community and just get on with doing business. That seems unlikely, of course, as Oracle probably hopes to find less knowledgeable judges on appeal. One hopes, however, that the appeals court judges will recognize the very, very thorough nature of Judge Alsup's ruling, and reject any appeal as well.

Filed Under: android, api, copyright, java, william alsup
Companies: google, oracle