No, you fail! If you multiply $2B by 3.14159 (the "pi rate"), you get ~$6.28B, which is 214.159% (~$4.28B) more than $2B. Never match wits with a Sicilian when math is on the line. Or something like that.
When your lawyers draft a complaint and abbreviate your product's name as "LoL", should you question: (a) your legal strategy; (b) your choice of lawyers; or, (c) both.
It's worth noting that the Court upheld Section 230 while explicitly citing Internet Brands in rendering its decision:
While the Ninth Circuit has described the reach of section 230(c)(1) in broad terms, stating that it “immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties,” the statute does not “create a lawless no-man’s-land on the internet.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., No. 12-56638, 2016 WL 3067995, at *6 (9th Cir. May 31, 2016) (noting that “the CDA does not declare a general immunity from liability deriving from third-party content”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, separated into its elements, section 230(c)(1) protects from liability only (a) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (b) that the plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker (c) of information provided by another information content provider. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2009).
There's zero chance this will even be viewed by a judge until after the Olympic games are underway and any decision will probably arrive after the games have finished.
If they were serious, they would move for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. That they are leaving it up to a Rule 57 request for a "speedy hearing" that they know won't get granted until after the Olympics suggests that this is more publicity stunt than anything.
The firm of Irell & Manella is the author of this brief. The reasoning in this brief is as if it were written by monkeys. Therefore, monkeys can be authors.
Even assuming two premises of this lawsuit are true—that there are Internet users other than Colin O’Kroley searching “Colin O’Kroley” and that they look only at the Google previews rather than clicking on and exploring the links—it’s not likely that anyone will ever see the offending listing at the root of this lawsuit. Each age has its own form of self-help.
So is this the O'Kroley Exception to the Streisand Effect?
While the decision does affirm what's already assumed about Section 230 protections, it's good to see these protections reaffirmed -- especially given recent highly-questionable decisions emanating from that area of the country.
If you're referring to Internet Brands again, the Ninth Circuit was asked a very narrow question in that case. They got it right. Lest you think I favor the plaintiff, I will predict again that the case will get tossed. But it won't be at the Ninth Circuit because Section 230 is irrelevant on the facts alleged.
The problem is that the defendant relied solely on Section 230 in the motion to dismiss. They should have given the Court a second reason: lack of any special relationship giving rise to the duty to warn under California law. In fact, Judge Clifton practically screams to the world the problem with the plaintiff's case on page 11 of his opinion: "The duty to warn allegedly imposed by California law would not require Internet Brands to remove any user content or otherwise affect how it publishes or monitors such content." There is no special relationship between a website and run-of-the-mill users, so no duty to warn under California law. But, the Court's hands were tied.
The right strategy now would be to go back to the district court and file a new motion to dismiss for lack of a special relationship. So what did Internet Brands choose to do? File for an extension of time to request an en banc hearing.
Like I said, the case ultimately will get tossed. Eventually.
GPS and a data connection (either WiFI or cellular (30/4G) data) arc required in order to play. ... The location where you take a picture of a Pokemon is also likely embedded in the picture's metadata.
It's just harmless metadata. No big deal, right? Right?!?
Turkish TV broadcasts a message from Erdogan claiming he's in control and will punish the coup leaders.
If he succeeds, it will prove that he is a coup-coup leader. Ironically, if he doesn't succeed, legally he can't say anything bad about the new president.
If there is one thing I like less than online ads, it's online ads that look like they are for software but really are just for how-to courses, carefully dressed up to look like they are for software. Bad move.
On the post: Your 'Smart' Power Outlets Are Now Botnets Thanks To The Internet Of Broken Things
On the post: India Criminalizes Merely Visiting A Copyright Infringing 'Blocked' Site
Re: Re: The Math Is All Wrong
On the post: India Criminalizes Merely Visiting A Copyright Infringing 'Blocked' Site
The Math Is All Wrong
On the post: Hold On... We May Actually Be In For A THIRD Oracle/Google API Copyright Trial
Re: If Charles Dickens were reincarnated in this era...
On the post: News Sites Realizing That Relying On Facebook For Traffic Might Not Have Been Wise
Now I Understand
On the post: Riot Games Joins Blizzard In Misusing Copyright To Go After Video Game Cheaters
A Quiz
Both. Definitely both.
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
Section 230 is Alive and Well
On the post: Primatologist Tells Court That Macaque Monkeys Are, Like, Super Smart, So They Should Totally Get Copyrights
Spoken Like an Artist
On the post: Minnesota Carpet Cleaning Business Sues US Olympic Committee Over Its Ridiculous Social Media Rules
All in a Name
Sue
Other
Companies
On the post: Minnesota Carpet Cleaning Business Sues US Olympic Committee Over Its Ridiculous Social Media Rules
Where There's a Will, There's a Way
On the post: Houston Law Firm Sues Student With Severe Back Injuries For $200k After She Posts Negative Reviews To Yelp, Facebook
Which department is that?
On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: My biggest problem with these stories..
On the post: The Selfie-Taking Monkey Who Has No Idea He Has Lawyers Has Appealed His Copyright Lawsuit
Re: My biggest problem with these stories..
The reasoning in this brief is as if it were written by monkeys.
Therefore, monkeys can be authors.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Silly Case Against Google Over Search Results Summary
Not A Recommended Tactic, But Nevertheless
On the post: Dear US Olympic Committee: Tweeting About The Olympics Is Never Trademark Infringement
You're pronouncing it wrong
On the post: Nick Denton Bucks The Trend Du Jour, Thinks News Comments Are Worth Saving
I disagree
On the post: California Appeals Court Reaffirms Section 230 Protections In Lawsuit Against Yelp For Third-Party Postings
Again With Feeling
The problem is that the defendant relied solely on Section 230 in the motion to dismiss. They should have given the Court a second reason: lack of any special relationship giving rise to the duty to warn under California law. In fact, Judge Clifton practically screams to the world the problem with the plaintiff's case on page 11 of his opinion: "The duty to warn allegedly imposed by California law would not require Internet Brands to remove any user content or otherwise affect how it publishes or monitors such content." There is no special relationship between a website and run-of-the-mill users, so no duty to warn under California law. But, the Court's hands were tied.
The right strategy now would be to go back to the district court and file a new motion to dismiss for lack of a special relationship. So what did Internet Brands choose to do? File for an extension of time to request an en banc hearing.
Like I said, the case ultimately will get tossed. Eventually.
On the post: Defense Department Issues Opsec Guidelines For Safe And Secure Pokemon Hunting
D'oh D
On the post: As Erdogan Faces Turkish Coup, The Guy Who Once Banned Social Media Sites, Forced To Address Nation Via Facetime & Twitter
So...
On the post: Daily Deal: Ultimate Adobe Photo Editing Bundle
Better Keep an Eye on StackCommerce
Next >>