Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


9th Circuit Defines Libel on the Web
September 07, 2003
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit waded into cyberspace late last month to set liability for Web site operators who put libelous information on the Internet in <i>Batzel v. Smith</i>.
CA Court Says Trespass Law Cannot Stop Unwanted E-mail Without Proof of Damage
September 07, 2003
Companies besieged by unwanted e-mail can only invoke the California's trespass-to-chattels law if the messages cause actual damage to equipment or property, the California Supreme Court held recently.
UPS Hunts Unknown Culprits in Spam Scam
September 07, 2003
United Parcel Service of America (UPS) is tackling computer spam with a federal suit that seeks more than $1 million in damages from unnamed spammers.
Are You Breaking The Law?
September 07, 2003
The Internet has become mainstream by every commercial standard. Numerous legal difficulties await the unprepared human resource professionals. This is the second in a two part series that attempts to identify the top 10 things human resource professional need to know about Internet Law.
Brief Relief: Online Resources May Ease the Pinch
September 07, 2003
If you do not mind paying for them, you can obtain copies of legal briefs over the Web from several sources. But where can you find free briefs?
Cybersticks and Cyberstones: Cybergriping after Bear Sterns and Taubman Company
September 07, 2003
Cybergriping occurs when one party (a 'cybergriper') i) establishes a Web site (the 'complaint site' or 'attack site') dedicated to the publication of complaints, claims, criticism, or parody of or against another party (the 'target company'), and ii) registers the Web site under a domain name comprised of the target's trademark and a pejorative suffix, such as 'sucks.com,' 'crooks.com' or 'ripoff.com.' Not surprisingly, target companies have attempted to combat this relatively new form of asymmetrical cyberwarfare by bringing suit against cybergripers under various legal theories, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution and cybersquatting.
IP NEWS
September 05, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Package Patent Licensing After <i>Microsoft</i>
September 05, 2003
The law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of <i>United States v. Microsoft,</i> 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.
Copyright Law and the Non-Exclusive Rights to 'Link' and 'Crawl'
September 05, 2003
One of the most important issues faced by commercial purveyors of content on the Internet is how to protect their content. Much coffee and ink have been spilled over the question of how copyright, contract and tort law may be marshaled to maximize protection (or may be circumvented to minimize it).
Origin of Goods Under the Lanham Act: An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
September 05, 2003
The Copyright Act and Patent Act were designed to protect originality and creativity. Courts, however, have generally been cautious about misusing or overextending the Lanham Act to areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright law. <i>See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.</i>, 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001).

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
    There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
    Read More ›
  • Supreme Court Asked to Assess Per Se Rule Tension in Criminal Antitrust
    In recent years, practitioners have observed a tension between criminal enforcement of the broadly written terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the modern Supreme Court's notions of statutory interpretation and due process in the criminal law context. A certiorari petition filed in late August in Sanchez et al. v. United States, asks the Supreme Court to address this tension, as embodied in the judge-made per se rule.
    Read More ›
  • Restrictive Covenants Meet the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in <i>Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra<i>, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
    Read More ›