Netflix Patent Antitrust Case Thrown Out, Judge Orders Lawyers To Alert The Press

from the legal-oddities dept

Back in May we told you about a class action lawsuit that was being filed against Netflix, claiming that the company violated antitrust law by fraudulently obtaining the patents it was using to sue Blockbuster. This seemed like a really odd argument, and one unlikely to succeed. By definition, patents are monopoly rights which are granted by the government -- so it's difficult to see how they can violate antitrust law. Also, as we noted when the original suit was filed, these types of class action lawsuits rarely do much good (though, they do tend to make lawyers a lot wealthier). A little over a month after this lawsuit was filed, Netflix and Blockbuster decided to settle their patent dispute, at which point we wondered what would happen to the antitrust class action. Now we know. It's about to be dismissed. However, the judge apparently is worried that due to the original press coverage of the case (from folks like yours truly), potential members of the class may have held back filing other actions against Netflix -- and therefore has demanded that the lawyers get the same level of press coverage as the first time. Of course, the news that such an action has been dismissed isn't quite as newsworthy as the original filing (which was newsworthy for being an odd way to fight bad patents). Either way, the anonymous lawyer who tipped me off to the original case, has now emailed me again with the order demanding similar press coverage (to be clear: it's the order demanding similar press coverage, not the lawyer, who said rather little in the email). I'll post it here not because the dismissal of the case is interesting, but the idea that the judge believes the plaintiffs can "make sure that the end of these actions gets as much attention as their start." At this point it's unclear if the dismissal is because of the settlement (quite likely) or because it's just not a very good idea to claim patents violate antitrust law. As much as our patent law and patent system are screwed up these days, allowing people to challenge patents on the basis of antitrust class action lawsuits seems likely to only make things worse.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, patents
Companies: blockbuster, netflix

Supreme Court Lets Class Action Racketeering Suit Against Best Buy & Microsoft Move Forward

from the the-not-so-free-paid-trial dept

Way back in 2003, we wrote about accusations that Microsoft and Best Buy were scamming customers into signing up for Microsoft's ISP MSN. The accusation was that Best Buy employees would scan the "free trial" MSN CD-ROMs that were at the store when customers would make a purchase. Customers wouldn't realize it, but the scan would then charge that customer's credit card once the free trial ended, signing them up as fully paying customers. While we wondered how widespread this practice was, some Best Buy employees have come forward to confirm that it was done at times. Both Best Buy and Microsoft have been fighting the case, and an appeal went all the way up to the Supreme Court, trying to get the case thrown out, but the Supreme Court has refused to review it, meaning the case can move forward. Of course, what's left out of much of the coverage is that lawyers working for Best Buy have already admitted to altering some of the documents he handed over in the case, which certainly doesn't bode well for Best Buy. While it's still unclear just how big a "class" this covers, if the two companies really were involved in such an activity, it does seem quite sleazy.

Filed Under: class action, free trial, racketeering
Companies: best buy, microsoft

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iBricking -- Violation Of Antitrust Law?

from the always-gotta-sue dept

While the last class action lawsuit over the iPhone was pretty ridiculous -- claiming that the rapid price drop was illegal -- this latest one may have a bit more substance behind it. One of the victims of the infamous iPhone iBricking update has now filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iBricking action was a violation of California law. The specific arguments are a bit complex, but basically, the guy is claiming that in locking the handset to one carrier, Apple violated sections of the Cartwright Act, which is designed to prevent companies from creating artificial market barriers on products they sell in order to boost the price. On top of that, the lawsuit notes that unlocking a phone for use on other networks is perfectly legal under last year's DMCA exemptions. Therefore, to then brick the iPhones that were unlocked violates the California law, saying that it's illegal to take actions that "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly." It may be a bit of a stretch to say that applies in this case, and Apple can simply plead (reasonably) that the iBricking was not on purpose, and that the company has no requirement to support unlocked handsets -- but if this case actually does get some traction, Apple may need to be a bit more careful in future firmware updates.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple

Tonya Andersen Trying To Turn Her Lawsuit Against The RIAA Into A Class Action

from the might-not-be-the-best-idea dept

Tanya Andersen has been fighting back against a bogus RIAA lawsuit for a while, and got some attention earlier this summer when she accused the RIAA of breaking the law with its investigation technique. It's also one of a few cases that have questioned whether or not the RIAA's settlement offer process can be considered illegal racketeering. However, she's now looking to turn her lawsuit into a class action case, covering all of those who have been sued by the RIAA. It may be quite difficult to convince a judge that this really deserves class action status, but if it gets that far, it'll certainly be fun to watch. It's been pretty clear for quite some time that the RIAA is abusing the process by making it cheaper to settle than even to defend your innocence (which sounds mighty similar to the classic shakedown). However, whether or not you can build a class out of those offered settlement deals (or sued) isn't entirely clear. But, if it can actually get somewhere, then it might finally make the RIAA recognize that it's practices are questionable. So far, every time someone has accused them of anything like this, they just try to get out of the case and move on to suing others who are less likely to fight back.

Filed Under: class action, racketeering, riaa, rico
Companies: riaa

Court Tells Cingular It Can't Deny Lawyers Chance To Make Money

from the how-dare-you dept

The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that a class-action lawsuit against mobile operator Cingular (now called AT&T) can proceed, despite a clause in the contracts it has subscribers sign preventing them from starting such actions. The suit in question alleges that Cingular overcharged some customers in the state for some roaming and long-distance calls, with a lawyer for the customers saying they were overcharged by $1 to $40 per month. Will this help the customers recover the charges and receive compensation in line with the overcharging? That seems unlikely, since all that's really happened is the court's given lawyers a green light to pursue a paycheck.

Filed Under: class action, overcharge
Companies: cingular

Shareholder Class-Action Suits On The Wane?

from the feel-bad-for-those-lawyers dept

In the wake of a couple of decisions by the Supreme Court to limit shareholder class-action suits, the WSJ's law blog says that the number of such suits is already falling. In the first half of the year, 59 securities class-action suits were filed, compared to 63 in the same period a year earlier, and an average of 101 every six months between 1996 and 2005. The head of the Stanford law group that compiled the report says it's because there's less fraud going on, thanks to increased enforcement by the SEC and DOJ. What seems more likely, though, is that the stock market has been pretty strong, decreasing the number of big run-ups followed by huge falls in share prices. It's much easier to find pissed-off investors after a stock has tanked, since plenty of them are looking for somebody to blame, and the idea of getting a big settlement to offset their loss is an appealing one. Of course, those settlements really only tend to benefit one party -- and it's not the shareholders.

Filed Under: class action, lawsuits