RNC Backs Down On Threats Over T-Shirts With Its Logo

from the an-elephant-never-forgets,-but-sometimes-it-misuses-trademark-law dept

Paul Alan Levy writes in to let us know that following widespread press coverage of his challenge to the Republican National Committee to back down from suing CafePress over t-shirts that use the term "GOP" or show the RNC's elephant logo, that the RNC has in fact agreed to back down. It won't be suing CafePress or users, and will only ask that those who just show the logo or the term apply for a free license (though, it's unclear what happens if that license request is turned down). However, in following this story, Levy discovered that the RNC had also been threatening some individual sellers, especially on t-shirts that are critical of the RNC. Levy and Public Citizen have called on the RNC to withdraw the threatening letters, and warns the RNC that it may sue for declaratory relief (basically get a judge to say the t-shirts are perfectly legal) if the RNC does not withdraw the letters.

Filed Under: lawsuits, public citizen, republican national committee, trademark
Companies: cafepress

SCO Gets Wrist Slapped Over Novell Unix Copyrights

from the this-ain't-over-yet dept

More than five years after SCO went on its quixotic quest to try to sue Linux out of existence, it's finally had to pay at least some of the price. As you probably know, soon after SCO sued IBM, Novell pointed out that it was pretty sure SCO was wrong in claiming to hold copyrights over Unix code. In fact, Novell was pretty sure that it still owned those copyrights. SCO then took Novell to court over the issue -- making that the main arena for SCO's claims. It took plenty of time, but the judge ruled that, indeed, Novell owned the copyrights, basically derailing SCO's entire basis for its lawsuits. At first it appeared as if SCO was just going to give up. It declared bankruptcy and many hoped it would just go away. Unfortunately, it received a lifeline in the form of a $100 million line of credit, allowing it to keep on suing.

As for the Novell case, a judge has finally come down with the final ruling on a fine, and it's basically a slap on the wrist to SCO. Rather than buying Novell's argument that 95% of SCO's licensing revenue actually belongs to Novell, the judge took a much more limited approach saying SCO only owes $2.5 million. It's not peanuts, but it's a lot less than many had hoped. It certainly will allow SCO to keep going (and potentially appeal this ruling) which is why many are labeling this as a mixed bag sort of ruling. Still, as has been pointed out, SCO is the one that kicked this off, suing IBM and then Novell... and the end result is that SCO is paying out $2.5 million. That's probably not what the company's execs expected when they started down this path.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, linux
Companies: novell, sco

Disney Sues Party Store For Costumes Looking Like Disney Characters

from the let's-look-at-the-history dept

You all know the history of Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, right? It all started with a train crash in 1900 killing one engineer named Cayce Jones. That crash inspired the fireman on that train ride to write a song commemorating Jones. That song became popular, passed along from railroad to railroad, and some others took it and turned it into a popular song about "Casey Jones." That was so popular, that some other songwriters basically remixed the song into one about a Steamboat captain: Steamboat Bill. That became so popular that Buster Keaton made a silent film called "Steamboat Bill Jr." And, finally, that inspired Walt Disney to take the idea of a mouse named Mickey (which some believe he got from a popular toy named Micky Mouse sold by an entirely different company) and created a parody video called "Steamboat Willie." That launched Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney into a world of fame and fortune -- all based on this creative passing on of songs, names, characters and content -- all of which Disney now believes should be illegal.

Remember that when you read this story, sent in by ehrichweiss, about Disney suing a married couple who own a party supplies for a million dollars, because they happened to buy some costumes from a supplier in Peru that look like the Disney owned Winnie-the-Pooh characters Tigger and Eeyore. The couple claims they didn't realize the costumes were of the Pooh characters, thinking they were just a tiger and a donkey. As soon as they received the lawsuit, the couple immediately sent the costumes back to the supplier in Peru. Turns out this was a mistake, as Disney is demanding they hand over the costumes.

Apparently, all creative innovation needed to stop once Disney took over.

Filed Under: copyright, costumes, eeyeore, lawsuits, mickey mouse, tigger, trademark
Companies: disney

Man Sues Newspaper For Laying Off Reporters

from the everything-must-stay-the-same,-always dept

It's no secret that plenty of newspapers have been cutting staff and even the size of their papers in recent months. It's really a reaction to the fact that newspapers spent way too many years in denial that they were no longer the only news sources in town. So now they finally have to adjust, and one first step is shedding some overhead. However, one newspaper subscriber to the News & Observer in North Carolina is suing the paper over its recent cuts. It sounds like it's mostly just a publicity stunt, but Keith Hempstead, a lawyer (and former reporter), says he renewed his subscription in May, just before the paper announced cuts. Thus, he claims, he's getting less than what he was promised when he subscribed -- and that's somehow fraud. It's doubtful this lawsuit will go anywhere and the "point" Hempstead is making actually seems backwards. Marketplaces change and companies in those marketplaces need to change to keep up with the market. Suing them for changing is hardly going to encourage newspapers to embrace necessary change.

Filed Under: fraud, lawsuits, layoffs, newspapers

Dutch Chipmaker Sues To Prevent Researchers From Publishing Info About Security Flaws

from the security-by-obscurity? dept

NXP Semiconductors, which was formerly Philips Semiconductor division, is suing some researchers to prevent the publication of a paper outlining the security flaws in smartcards made by NXP. These smartcards are widely used for transit systems and building locks. Of course, the fact that these cards have been insecure has actually been known for quite some time. Rather than fixing the problem, though, NXP spent plenty of effort denying any problem existed. Now that multiple researchers have demonstrated that the problem really does exist, NXP is claiming it hasn't had enough time to fix the problem, and thus is suing to prevent publication.

Of course, if NXP hadn't wasted so much time insisting there was no problem, perhaps it would have been closer to a fix. And, most importantly, those who are looking to use this vulnerability already have access to it. Publication in a journal isn't going to alert criminals -- they already know about it. What it could do, however, is get more researchers helping on a solution. But, apparently, NXP would rather pretend that if they keep the details hidden, they can pretend there is no problem.

Filed Under: disclosure, lawsuits, security, smart cards
Companies: nxp semiconductors

Viacom Gets To Find Out What YouTube Videos You Watched

from the not-good dept

In the ongoing trainwreck that is Viacom's misguided lawsuit against YouTube (the one they would be better off losing) a judge has come out with a ruling on evidence that Google has to hand over to Viacom -- and it's being portrayed in the press as both a win and a loss for Google. On the "win" side, Google does not have to hand over the YouTube source code (or the source code of its filtering system). This makes sense, as the source code is rather meaningless here, and this request was clearly a reach from the start.

However, much more troublesome is the judge's ruling that Google does need to hand over log files including the IP address and usernames of people who viewed YouTube videos. This represents a huge violation of privacy and a clear violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). This was the law we were just discussing, due to a lawsuit concerning Blockbuster revealing rental info via Facebook's Beacon program. It was originally passed after the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was released in the press. The idea is that what movies you rent should be private info not to be shared.

The court pretty much ignored this law, only mentioning it in a footnote, suggesting that it only applies to video tapes. But, as the EFF points out in the link above, the law actually says "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials." But, more to the point, it is not at all clear why Viacom should need this specific information. If it wants to show numbers of people who viewed certain videos, it seems that aggregate info should be sufficient. Having Google hand over much more info doesn't seem to serve any purpose related to the legal questions involved in the case. Update: There are now claims that Viacom will be very limited in how the data can be used -- with the threat of a contempt of court charge if anyone other than the lawyers involved in the case and specific experts see the data, but that's really not sufficient for privacy purposes. There's no way to make sure the data only stays in those hands, and even so it's still a violation of the privacy of users.

Filed Under: lawsuits, log files, video rentals
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

EMI's 'New Approach' To The Internet Looks A Lot Like The Old Approach

from the sue-sue-sue-sue dept

Apparently, EMI is finding it harder than expected to shackle its lawyers. The major record label was taken over by private equity guys who claimed they were going to take a new approach to the music industry, pointing to examples like Radiohead as the way to go. The company has made a few steps in the right direction -- such as threatening to leave the RIAA and the IFPI, as well as hiring some tech savvy talent. But, it just keeps sending out those lawyers filing all sorts of questionable lawsuits.

The latest is that EMI has sued both Hi5 and VideoEgg over user-uploaded videos that include some EMI music. Of course, under the DMCA, these sites are not responsible for any infringement from its users -- and if EMI has a legal beef with anyone, it would be those who uploaded the content. But, of course, it sues the companies who might actually have money. That "new approach" to the industry is looking an awful lot like the old approach. EMI is going to learn that the results are about the same too. Pissing off your fans and the websites that actually help promote your acts isn't going to go very far.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, music, video
Companies: emi, hi5, videoegg

Expensive Patent Attorneys Know How To Cut & Paste, But Not Search & Replace

from the get-your-money's-worth dept

Well, it's a mistake plenty of folks are bound to make eventually, but that doesn't make it any less amusing. Joe Mullin has a short post about a big time patent law firm that has launched two recent patent lawsuits over the same basic patents held by a patent holding firm. The only problem? In filing the second lawsuit, it appears that the patent attorneys used cut & paste from the first lawsuit, but didn't use search & replace to get rid of the name of the original defendant. Hopefully, the patent holder didn't pay too much for the cost of filing that second lawsuit.

Filed Under: cut and paste, lawsuits, lawyers, patents, search and replace

ConnectU Wants Out Of Its Settlement With Facebook; Wants To Sue Again

from the oh-come-on dept

Earlier this year, we were disappointed to see Facebook agree to settle with ConnectU. ConnectU was another wannabe social network that Mark Zuckerberg worked for briefly before going off to found Facebook. The brothers behind ConnectU were unsuccessful in doing much with ConnectU, but it wasn't because Zuckerberg "stole their idea." It was because he executed much better. The "idea" itself was hardly novel at the time, as there were already a number of social networks out there. While it may have made economic sense in the short term for Facebook to settle with ConnectU (just to get the lawsuit hassle out of the way), that sort of settlement leads to more people claiming credit for something they have no real rights over.

Yet, if you thought the case was now over, you'd be wrong. Apparently the brothers behind ConnectU suddenly claim that they've come up with a "smoking gun" and they want to cancel the settlement and get back to the lawsuit. This is clearly a pure moneygrab at this point. Even if the brothers could prove that every bit of Facebook is based on code that Zuckerberg directly copied from ConnectU, it wouldn't change the reality of the situation -- which was that Zuckerberg created a service people wanted to use, and the ConnectU guys did not. They're basically demanding money to pay for their own failure to execute well. In this society, we want to reward the winners in the marketplace, not the losers.

Filed Under: harvard, ideas, lawsuits, social networks
Companies: connectu, facebook

Woman Sues Google Because Of Scammy Advertiser

from the steve-dallas-lawsuit dept

We've discussed in the past the concept of the "Steve Dallas lawsuit," named after an old Bloom County comic, where the lawyer character Steve Dallas gets beaten up by Sean Penn after trying to take a photo of him. In the comic, Dallas decides to sue Nikon, the maker of the camera, and explains that you always target the company with the most money rather than anyone actually responsible for the situation you're in. That seems to be happening again, as a woman is now suing Google because an ad on Google pointed her to a scammy ringtone provider, who did not clearly indicate what the ringtone would cost. The woman's lawyer is trying to turn this into a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming that it failed to live up to its advertising policies, which forbid ads from companies that don't clearly indicate their fees. It seems rather ridiculous to think that if any scammy company happens to get its ads on Google, that Google is somehow liable. And, yes, while some of those ringtone services may be less-than-honest in how they present their services, why not just protest the charges or (if you really must file a lawsuit) sue the ringtone company?

Filed Under: lawsuits, liability, ringtones, steve dallas
Companies: google