Mass Law Blog
Intellectual property and business litigation, Massachusetts and nationallyWritten by humans
Lee Gesmer’s Mass Law Blog began in 2005, and contains almost 600 posts. The site initially focused on Massachusetts law, but today it follows business and intellectual property law nation-wide. The site is hosted by Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a law firm based in Boston, Massachusetts. The firm represents startup and established companies in the areas of litigation, transactions (including financings, mergers and acquisitions), IP rights, taxation, employment law, standards consortia, business counseling and open source development projects and foundations. You can find a summary of the firm’s services here. To learn how Gesmer Updegrove can help you, contact: Lee Gesmer
The Kerfuffle Over Copyrights in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
If you are confused by the news that a California federal court has ruled that satellite broadcaster Sirius XM is liable under California state law for streaming pre-1972 sound recordings by The Turtles,* you are not alone. The issues in this case prove, once again, Mark Twain's complaint that "only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." To appreciate this bizarre situation you may need to be reminded of a few basic principles of our arcane...
A Contractual Acceptance Period is a Vendor’s Best Friend
I've often advised vendor-clients that one of the best ways to protect themselves is to include an acceptance clause in their agreements. This can be accomplished either through an explicit acceptance clause or a short warranty period, which can function as a de facto acceptance clause. For some reason, many customers seem to forget about the acceptance clause, giving the vendor a strong defense to a claim of breach. This is what happened in Samia v. MRI Software, decided by Massachusetts...
Two Recent Decisions Show the Strengths and Limitations of the CDA
Many observers have commented that if they had to identify one law that has had the greatest impact in encouraging the growth of the Internet, they would chose the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) (47 USC § 230). Under the CDA (also often referred to as "Section 230") web sites are not liable for user submitted content. As a practical matter, in most cases this means Internet providers are not liable for defamation posted by users (many of whom are anonymous or judgment-proof).* *note:The...
Google Rolls the Dice, Files Cert Petition in Oracle Copyright Case
Google has filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to review and reverse the Federal Circuit's May 9, 2014 decision holding that the declaring code of Oracle's Java API software is not copyrightable. I have written about this case on several occasions, most recently on May 10, 2014 (CAFC Reverses Judge Alsup – Java API Declaring Code Held Copyrightable). Google framed the "question presented" (framing the question in such a way as to catch the interest of the court is an...