Maurice Michael Ross’s Comments

• Feb 19th, 2020 @ 7:27am

  Section 230

  on What A Shame: Legacy Newspapers Want To Take Away Free Speech On The Internet

  The knee jerk belief that Section 230 must be protected to preserve free speech on the internet is mistaken. Free speech must be protected but that does not mean different standards should apply to internet publishes than legacy publishers. Facebook and Twitter are publishers---not just platforms for user generated comments. They make billions and should be required to expend the same resources as legacy publishes spend to eliminate content that violates our laws, including intellectual property laws, defamation laws, election laws and others. It is a mistake to apply different standards to legacy publishers than to internet publishers. First Amendment protections should be sufficient, but Section 230 immunity goes too far, immunizing billion dollars platforms from any obligation to protect the public from attempts to misuse their platforms to violate the law, including, for example, limits on campaign contributions and limits on foreign intervention in U.S. political campaigns. The internet will survive just fine without Section 230, the elimination of which will require executives for Facebook and other such platforms to expend resources similar to those of legacy publishers to assure compliance with law.

• Feb 21st, 2018 @ 9:31pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
  I regularly defend copyright troll cases against Malibu Media. I detest these troll cases. But embedding is a much more complex issue. Copyright owners do deserve reasonable compensation. Copyright minimalists make not more sense than copyright maximalists. One person made a defamation accusation against me but I will just correct the record here. I am counsel of record adverse to Malibu Media in many cases
• Feb 18th, 2018 @ 3:06pm

  Copyright Decision

  on Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
  Copyright law needs to be updated to deal with the internet. For better or worse, as a copyright lawyer who specializes in this are, Judge Forrest's opinion is probably correct. The "server' rule in Perfect 10 really doesn't make sense under traditional concepts of the right to distribute and display. Even if the"server" rule could withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, it doesn't apply to embedded content like this. Copyright owners do have the right to limit distribution and display of their works, and that right was violated here, subject to other defenses. I have argued for years that while courts for reasons of practicality have asserted (with weak legal support) that hyperlinking (the essence of the internet) is not infringement, these decisions are technically wrong under traditional copyright law provisions. The law is now a hopeless muddle, and we need Congress to clarify the limits of copyright infringement law when it comes to the internet. In Europe (Germany and several other countries), courts have concluded that hyperlinking can be infringement. Here to, there are many decisions that news and information aggregation services can be sued for hyperlinking when the links are added to a short summary of the material. The problem is that in the interest of freedom of speech, the internet has become the wild west, short circuiting rights of content creators and diluting their value. We need a brand new legal paradigm that strikes the right balance between freedom of expression and rewarding creators of valuable works of art, music, and expression.
• Feb 18th, 2018 @ 3:00pm

  Copyright Decision

  on Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
  Copyright law needs to be updated to deal with the internet. For better or worse, as a copyright lawyer who specializes in this area, Judge Forrest's opinion is probably correct. The "server' rule in Perfect 10 really doesn't make sense under traditional concepts of the right to distribute and display. Even if the"server" rule could withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, it doesn't apply to embedded content like this. Copyright owners do have the right to limit distribution and display of their works, and that right was violated here, subject to other defenses. I have argued for years that while courts for reasons of practicality have asserted (with weak legal support) that hyperlinking (the essence of the internet) is not infringement, these decisions are technically wrong under traditional copyright law provisions. The law is now a hopeless muddle, and we need Congress to clarify the limits of copyright infringement law when it comes to the internet. In Europe (Germany and several other countries), courts have concluded that hyperlinking can be infringement. Here too, there are many decisions of district courts holding that news and information aggregation web-sites can be sued for hyperlinking when the links are added to a short summary of the material. The problem is that in the interest of freedom of speech, the internet has become the wild west, short circuiting rights of content creators and diluting their value. We need a brand new legal paradigm that strikes the right balance between freedom of expression and rewarding creators of valuable works of art, music, and expression.
• Jul 28th, 2015 @ 3:32pm

  Portland Sign

  on Portland City Officials Agree Not To Sue Over Portland Oregon Sign To Keep Court From Ruling On Trademark
  The flaw in this analysis is the assumption that Portland is not using the sign in commerce. That is probably wrong. Portland's lawyers made a wise strategic decision that it is not worthwhile economically to fight this case against this individual user. But this does not mean that Portland's lawyers think the trademark is weak--as a trademark lawyer on both sides of these issues I can tell you from painful experience that these decisions are driven primarily by the high economic costs of litigation--not the risks that a trademark will be invalidated.
• Oct 24th, 2014 @ 1:22pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Court Ruling: The NFL Isn't Violating Player's Publicity Rights By Selling Videos Of Historical Game Footage
  You can't use a photograph just because you own the copyright. Publicity rights protect the commercial exploitation of the image of a celebrity---i.e., you have to pay a celebrity to use his image to promote your product or service, or to use the image to bring players to your games. The right publicity differs from state to state but it is fairly well-understood among lawyers---it is about using celebrity images to endorse products or improve sales. You can't use celebrity images in games without permission because the purpose of the use is in part to sell the game. The First Amendment protects use of images for purposes of journalism or commentary etc., but not to sell products such as games. And use of an image in a game is not for purposes of journalism, commentary, etc--it is to create a new game experience for players which is a commercial use.
• Oct 24th, 2014 @ 9:55am

  NFL Decision

  on Court Ruling: The NFL Isn't Violating Player's Publicity Rights By Selling Videos Of Historical Game Footage
  This is a wise and unsurprising decision. Legally, however, it has almost no impact on cases involving use of player images in games. Further, NFL players are compensated well in exchange for which they consent to the use of their images by their teams and leagues. College players are not paid (at least legally), which makes a big difference.
• Oct 10th, 2014 @ 12:34pm

  (untitled comment)

  on More Abuse Of The Orphan Drug System: Taking Treatment From Free To $80,000 A Year
  Research indicates that the situation is more nuanced. A small family company, Jacobus Pharmaceuticals, had been giving the drug away for this purpose for more than 20 years to about 200 patients per year, but had not conducted clinical trials, sought FDA approval, or done any of the other work required to get a drug on the market. It was apparently content to make and give away the drug to a small number of patients without compensation. However, the demand for the drug was much higher than 200 patients to whom Jacobus supplied it. Further, Jacobus' facilities failed repeated FDA inspections and it was unclear if it would ever be adequate to produce the drug in a manner approved by the FDA in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Catalyst sought to meet his consumer demand and to take advantage of the failures of Jacobus. Catalyst invested in the clinical trials and in developing manufacturing facilities that conform with FDA requirements. After Catalyst started its clinical trials, the small family business suddenly launched a small phase II clinical trial of its own---but many see that as an act of retaliation against Catalyst. Catalyst surely is seizing on a business opportunity, but opportunity arose because the smaller company, Jacobus, did not invest the funds necessary to bring this drug to market, get it approved by the FDA and meet consumer demand. Catalyst can be seen as doing a public service insofar as it has financed necessary clinical trials and sought FDA approval. Thus, it is not accurate to say that Catalyst did nothing to develop the drug or is engaging in free-riding. Here is a link to an article the explains this situation in a credible manner. http://www.lavoiegroup.com/news-and-events/bid/349029/Catalyst-Pharma-Fights-Greed-Charges-Over-Orph an-Drug
• Oct 10th, 2014 @ 12:00pm

  Clinical Trial

  on More Abuse Of The Orphan Drug System: Taking Treatment From Free To $80,000 A Year
  Didn't the company pay the costs of the clinical trials for this new indication? Isn't this a new use for an old drug? To get FDA approval of a new use for an old drug, companies need to spend millions on clinical trials. If so, then it is misleading to say the least to suggest that this company incurred no development costs. Further, the market for this drug seems relatively small--which may explain in part the high cost. I don't think any of us disagree that this company should be able to recoup its costs in developing this new use for the drug. I have no idea as to whether $80,000 per patient is the price necessary to allow the company to recoup its costs, but it might be.
• Sep 25th, 2014 @ 10:19am

  Patent Trolls

  on Rackspace Helps Kill A Patent Troll: Rotating Your Smartphone Is No Longer Infringing
  Most patents are not invalid. Further, what many forget is that so-called "trolls" usually represent the little guy--individual inventors who refused to play the corporate game and develop valuable technologies that benefit all of us. The only way for the small guy to get paid is to license his invention (because the small guy doesn't have the millions that it takes to bring a product to market). The so-called trolls sue when big corporate America refuses to pay a reasonable license fee to the small guy and instead, try to steal the invention. Further, the lawyers who represent the small inventor/patent-owner often take the risk of losing the case and front the money for costs and expenses which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. There needs to be some balance in the thinking here---anti-troll hysteria really amounts to anti-patent philosophy. But if you believe there is a place for patents in our system to reward innovation by the little guy, then the trolls and their lawyers actually perform an important public service. There is no other way for the individual inventor to compete without getting sucked up into the worst of corporate America.