Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer

from the older-ruling-stands dept

A few years back, we wrote about the case where a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player. The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer -- and a lower court agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer -- including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video). The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being. So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.

Filed Under: computers, porn, searches, supreme court
Companies: circuit city

Supreme Court To Review Whether Business Models And Software Are Patentable

from the this-should-be-interesting dept

While not a huge surprise, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court has agreed to take the Bilski case, which has received plenty of attention. If you don't recall, last year, the appeals court tried to further define what was patentable when it came to things like business models and software -- which many had considered to be a wide open field for patenting since 1998 and the State Street ruling. Of course, there's been a lot of controversy (and plenty of confusion) over the Bilski ruling, with some insisting that it really wouldn't impact software and business method patents, and others arguing that it will help kill off many such patents. However, pretty much everyone expected that the Supreme Court (with its recent interest in patent law) would weigh in. So, now we get to go through this battle all over again. Expect a lot of different parties to weigh in on how the Supreme Court should rule. Back when all the amici briefs were filed for the Bilski case, I put up a detailed post about the arguments for and against software patents, and I imagine that what we're about to see will be even more heated. Hopefully, the Supreme Court doesn't make things worse.

Filed Under: bilski, business method patents, business model patents, patents, software patents, supreme court

Looking Over Judge Sotomayor's Tech Law Record

from the not-much,-but-it's-something... dept

With President Obama nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Thomas O'Toole noted that she would likely be the first justice with experience in "cyberlaw" cases prior to joining the court. As such, it's at least worth looking at what she's had to say -- though, as O'Toole notes, there's really not all that much to be gleaned from her decisions. None of the rulings stands out as especially troublesome and most seem pretty straightforward. The most notable is likely her ruling in Sprecht v. Netscape, where she ruled that contract terms online may not be enforceable when hidden behind a link and then requiring the user to scroll down the page. She found that a "reasonably prudent" user would not likely have gone through the trouble, thus suggesting that the contract might not be enforceable. This seems like a good ruling, and at least a hint that perhaps Sotomayor understand some online-related issues. But, overall, there's not much else to go on at this point.

Most of the other rulings are on minor cases, though she did issue the original district court ruling on the Tasini v. NY Times case that explored whether or not the Times was violating the copyright of freelance authors by reselling the articles they had written for the Times in an electric form. She ruled in favor of the NY Times, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled the other way. On this again, I think she made the right decision (and the Supreme Court got it wrong), but there were a lot of little nuances in that case that make it not a black and white case at all.

Meanwhile, some others have looked into Sotomayor's record on intellectual property and free speech issues, noting that she was once an IP litigator when she was a practicing lawyer -- though there doesn't appear to be much detail there, and much of the work seemed to be focused on trademark issues (which are less of an issue that patent and copyright issues). There aren't that many cases, but, again, it's something of a mixed bag. Her ruling that a book of Seinfeld trivia was infringing seems questionable (facts aren't copyrightable...), but she also rejected a playwright who claimed copyright infringement over a movie (though, such cases rarely get very far).

So... from all this, we can conclude not very much at all when it comes to the issues we tend to talk about around here.

Filed Under: sonia sotomayor, supreme court, tech law

But How Would Steinbeck Feel About The Public Domain?

from the questions,-questions... dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a lawsuit involving John Steinbeck's heirs and their attempt to regain the copyright on his works. The specifics of the case were very, very much inside baseball, having to do with interpretations of certain changes to copyright law. The specifics aren't really worth bothering with here (though you can drill down if you want to know). The news this week was that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by Steinbeck's heirs, meaning that the appeals court ruling stands and the heirs don't get the copyrights back. However, what struck me as most interesting was the statement those heirs released:

John Steinbeck's granddaughter, Blake Smyle said, "This is about family. My grandfather would be deeply saddened to know that his contributions are now in the hands of strangers."

Mr. Steinbeck vows to continue to seek proper delegation of his father's legacy and to press forward on behalf of the families of other authors similarly situated to his position.

"If artists and their families cannot protect their rights, then everyone will ultimately suffer."

Now... that all sounds good and righteous, but is completely misleading. After all, if copyright law hadn't been changed and copyright extended greatly, Steinbeck's works would be in the public domain by now (actually, quite some time ago). In fact, as far as Steinbeck knew, both at the time he wrote his works and at the time of his death in 1968, almost everything he wrote would be in the public domain by now (some of his later works would likely still be covered, but the vast majority would be public domain). So, I find it odd to have his heirs claiming that he'd be "deeply saddened to know that his contributions are now in the hands of strangers." After all, he would have expected exactly that. That also makes the final quote hard to square with reality as well. Steinbeck knew the deal he was making with the public domain when he wrote his works. In fact, most of his works shouldn't be protected at all any more. So how can his heirs claim that everyone will suffer if those works aren't protected?

Filed Under: copyright, john steinbeck, public domain, supreme court

Supreme Court Tells Gov't It Can't Use ID Fraud Laws Against Illegal Immigrants

from the stretching-the-law dept

Apparently, the Federal Gov't has been using an ID fraud law that was passed a few years ago not to go after just those copying the identity of others for the sake of fraud, but illegal immigrants using fake IDs. The two scenarios are entirely different, but the Feds were quick to use the law against the illegal immigrants, as it was an easier tool to use than to go through the standard process of dealing with illegal immigrants. Now, no matter what you think of illegal immigrants and how they should be dealt with, we should all be concerned when the government is stretching the intention of a law beyond its clearly stated purpose... and the Supreme Court seems to agree. It's now told the government that it clearly went beyond the boundaries of the law in using it against immigrants. The court points out that the law is pretty clear that the person charged under the law must knowingly take the identity of someone else, but totally made up IDs don't appear covered by the law at all, because the law isn't intended for fake IDs... it's intended to deal with those defrauding others by taking their identity.

Filed Under: id fraud, immigration, supreme court

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Given Lesson In Internet Privacy

from the not-an-issue? dept

BoingBoing points us to an interesting story involving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who apparently gave a recent talk questioning the need to protect privacy online. That caught the attention of Joel Reidenberg, a law professor at Fordham, who teaches an Information Privacy Law class. As part of that class he includes an assignment for the class to try to dig up information on someone online, in order to prove how much information is out there. Last year, he chose himself. This year, given Scalia's comments, he had the class put together a dossier on Scalia, which was not released publicly, but did include a bunch of private info about Scalia that was dug up online. Apparently Scalia was not amused, saying:

I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

Now, to be fair, Scalia does have a point that not every single datum about anyone's life should be considered private. But it's equally silly to lash out and call the decision to give the assignment "abominably poor judgment." That seems like Scalia is suggesting security through obscurity is reasonable, and exposing why it's not is poor judgment. It's hard to see how that makes sense.

Filed Under: antonin scalia, internet, privacy, supreme court

Supreme Court Says FCC Can Fine Fleeting Expletives... For Now

from the next-up,-first-amendment-question dept

The FCC, under former chair Kevin Martin, suddenly took a much greater interest in fining network TV broadcasters for "fleeting expletives" -- generally live performances in which someone uttered a curse word. Prior to that, the FCC had generally ignored such "fleeting" uses and focused on more significant violations. So, when the FCC suddenly changed its policies and fined some TV networks, they sued, complaining that the change was arbitrary. In 2007, an appeals court agreed, calling the policy arbitrary and capricious. However, the Supreme Court has now reversed that, saying that it's within the FCC's power to make the determination of what policy it follows in regulating broadcast content.

However, the case is far from over. So far, this part of the case has only focused on whether or not the rule change was allowed. What hasn't been explored is that, if the rule change is allowed, is that new rule unconstitutional (as a violation of the First Amendment). That's the real question -- so all this stuff about whether the policy was arbitrary and capricious was more like the opening act for the First Amendment headliner that's about to happen. The case has now been sent back to the appeals court, where the free speech implications will be reviewed.

In the meantime, I'm still wondering why the liability should be on the broadcasters in the first place. If Cher or Nicole Ritchie utter a curse word while on live TV, how is that the network's fault? Beyond just the free speech questions, I'm trying to figure out why the liability should be on the networks at all.

Filed Under: fines, first amendment, fleeting expletives, free speech, supreme court
Companies: fcc, fox

Congressional Rep. Webcasts Hearing With Supreme Court Justices To Show How Easy It Is

from the just-like-that... dept

After a bit of a (very public) back and forth, a district court in the high-profile Tenenbaum case was recently told that it cannot broadcast courtroom proceedings online, saying that it violated certain rules. This is something that Congress could change... and it sounds like some in Congress really are interested in doing so. Rep. John Culberson, an early supporter of using tools like Twitter and Qik to communicate with constituents, apparently pulled out his camera phone in the middle of a hearing with Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Thomas and started broadcasting live to his website, trying to show them how easy it is to do these days, and why they should allow broadcasting of court proceedings in action.

Filed Under: john culberson, supreme court, webcast
Companies: qik

Supreme Court Won't Consider Virginia Anti-Spam Law

from the spammers-have-rights-too dept

The US Supreme Court has passed on the state of Virginia's appeal to keep its anti-spam law in place. The state's Supreme Court had ruled the law was unconstitutional, following the appeal of a spammer that had been convicted under it. He argued that the law overstepped the boundaries by outlawing non-commercial, as well as commercial spam, including things like political and religious speech that have generally been protected under the First Amendment. By not taking up the case, the high court appears to be extending that protection to cover spam as well. On balance, that's probably a good thing -- particularly as this "loophole" is unlikely to really make the spam problem any worse.

Filed Under: spam, supreme court, virginia

AT&T Didn't Violate Antitrust Laws In Wholesale DSL Pricing

from the really? dept

Well, this is certainly interesting. Just as the US government seems to be hinting at the possibility of declaring Google a monopoly, the Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling on whether or not AT&T violated antitrust laws in pricing its wholesale DSL lines at a price above its retail rates (i.e., other DSL providers could resell AT&T DSL lines, but they would have to price them significantly higher than AT&T or lose money). The Supreme Court has now said that it's not an antitrust violation to have priced line sharing in this manner.

I can certainly see the arguments for both sides in this ruling. In theory, AT&T should have the right to price its offerings wherever it wants. But, that ignores that AT&T does have a monopoly in terms of government granted rights-of-way and subsidies, such that no other provider can realistically compete without similar government benefits. This isn't because AT&T grew into a monopoly, but because the government granted them those rights and subsidies. In the end, though, as much as I think we should encourage competition via line sharing, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, in realizing that this isn't an antitrust issue, but a regulatory issue. When the gov't granted AT&T rights of way and subsidies, it could have (and probably should have) extracted certain requirements concerning line sharing. In not doing so, it implicitly allowed AT&T to price such line sharing at whatever ridiculous rates AT&T wanted. The solution isn't via an antitrust lawsuit as it is in making sure that granting such rights of way and subsidies comes with reasonable line sharing rules.

Filed Under: antitrust, line sharing, supreme court
Companies: at&t