As recently as 1977 virtually all “vertical restraints” were per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws. This included “nonprice” restraints, which are agreements between firms operating at different levels than the manufacturer that restrict the conditions under which firms may resell goods. An example might be a restriction on the locations from which a retailer may sell a manufacturer’s product.
Supreme Court precedent also restricted both vertical “maximum” price restrictions (example: “you may not price this product higher than $12/unit”) and vertical “minimum” price restraints (example: “you may not price this produce at less than $10/unit”).
However, over the last 30 years the Supreme Court has, in effect, withdrawn each of these antitrust prohibitions, holding that these restraints must be subject to the “rule of reason” (requiring an economic examination in every case to determine whether the harms outweigh the benefits), rather than the per se doctrine (per se illegal = automatically illegal; no excuse will do).… Read the full article
It’s rare for a trade secret case to reach the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, based on a Westlaw search only about five cases dealing with trade secret issues (except in passing) have reached the First Circuit in the last ten years. So, a trade secret decision from a court of that eminence is worth noting.
In Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp., Incase (a packaging design and manufacturing company based in Hopedale, Massachusetts), sued Timex after Timex commissioned Incase to design watch packaging for the secure retail display of Timex watches. After Incase designed the cases Timex bought some cases from Incase, but far fewer than had been discussed. Instead, Timex off-shored most of the manufacturing work to a Philippines company, using Incase’s designs and prototypes. The Philippine product was very similar to the Incase design.
An Incase employee stumbled across Timex watches displayed in the Philippine company’s package in a Target store.… Read the full article
I’ve written often about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects “interactive computer services” as follows:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker or any information provided by another information content provider
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be liable on account of —
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected �
Put simply, this law allows web site operators to avoid liability for certain types of publications on their sites by people outside their control, and to police their sites as they wish. The most obvious example is any kind of bulletin or message board that allows comments by members of the public.… Read the full article
When I began to practice in the area of technology law area in the early 1980s one of the issues we often brought up with clients was the need to get clear ownership assignment of their technology. We wrote articles about this, spoke on the topic, and generally beat the subject to death in publications and seminars.
It’s surprising (but not too surprising) that seemingly sophisticated businessmen still don’t focus on this.
Two cases we recently settled are illustrative of this issue.
In the first case, a start-up company hired a part-time/consultant level programmer. He ultimately became an “employee,” but the company allegedly failed to fulfill some of the obligations in his employment agreement, and failed to treat him as an employee in all respects, raising an issue as to whether he truly became an “employee” for legal purposes. In any event, even under the best of circumstances, some of the programming he did occurred before he became an “employee.”
After the programmer left the company under unpleasant circumstances, he claimed ownership of the software.… Read the full article