I’ve posted the slides from a CLE talk I gave on Wednesday, April 25th. Hopefully, the slides are informative standing alone. They address the very recent DMCA decisions by the 9th Circuit (Veoh) and 2nd Circuit (Youtube), the copyright “first sale” doctrine as applied to digital files in the Redigi case pending in SDNY, and recent trademark “keyword advertising” cases decided in the 4th and 9th Circuits (Rosetta Stone in the 4th Circuit, Network Automation and Louis Vuitton in the 9th). There are also some slides devoted to the CFAA, including the 9th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Nosal case.
If the embedded Scribd document doesn’t appear on your computer directly below, click here to go directly to Scribd
Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet… Read the full article
I’ll be reading this decision, issued today, more carefully in the next day or two, but my first impression is that it’s a win for supporters of the DMCA safe harbor statute based on various legal rulings, and a loss for Youtube based on the really dumb behavior of Youtube’s founders. Of course, these guys didn’t know, back in 2005, that seven years later the courts would be judging whether they were aware that they were hosting copyrighted videos. If they had known, they might not have emailed each other comments like these:
- “[W]e need views, [but] I’m a little concerned with the recent [S]upreme [C]ourt ruling on copyrighted material”
- “[S]ave your meal money for some lawsuits!”
- “concentrate all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil”
- “our dirty little secret . . . is that we actually just want to sell out quickly”
And there’s more like that.… Read the full article
Here is an unusual spin on Massachusetts non-compete law. As best I can understand the facts (which require a bit of “between the lines” reading) Trillium sued Cheung, a former employee of Trillium. Cheung had, it appears, released an employee from a non-compete agreement without company approval.
Trillium’s suit asserted breach of fiduciary duty to the company.
A trial ensued, but at the outset the judge observed that if the underlying non-compete agreement had not been enforceable the release had caused no harm to Trillium, and hence there had been no legal wrong committed by Cheung. In other words, the trial involved a concept that lawyers dislike greatly: a “trial within a trial.” (Think Russian nesting dolls). Here, the two trials involved the question of whether the non-compete was enforceable and, if so, whether Cheung acted illegally by releasing the employee from the agreement.
The trial began with a jury proceeding, during which the jury was asked to decide the second of these issues first – whether Cheung had improperly given the employee a release from the non-compete. … Read the full article