Communications - Legal Technology - Technologist
Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Communications Category

Have you been following this story? Roca Labs sells "neutraceuticals" that it claims on its website create the same effect as a gastric bypass without surgery. Many unsatisfied customers who bought Roca Labs' products vented on a website called Pissed Consumer.

Roca Labs, pursuant to a clause in its contract with customers, turned around and tried to sue Pissed Consumer for interfering with Roca's contractual relations with its customers. Pretty prosaic stuff, right? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Apple has long-since had an issue with its messaging service not playing nicely with Androids and other smartphones. I noticed the issue when I ditched my badly aging iPhone 3GS for a Google Nexus 4 a few years ago -- texts would be lost in the vapors, especially group text messages.

It turns out I wasn't alone: iMessage, which routes text messages though Apple's service, was intercepting text messages from fellow Apple users, even after users switched to Android. For a while, the problem went unaddressed. Then Apple was sued by an aggravated Galaxy S5 owner.

Now? Apple released a tool to fix the problem late last week. And U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled Monday that the lawsuit could move forward.

It used to be that, on the Internet, no one knew you were a dog. Now, though, the feds know that you're not a real person. See what a difference surveillance makes?

The Federal Trade Commission proposed fining JDI Dating, operator of several different dating websites, $616,000 for sending fake messages to members, ostensibly from people who wanted to meet them. But really, no one wanted to meet them. (Well, maybe someone did, but not the fake people who messaged them.)

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Tesla founder Elon Musk was asked about the legal implications of autopilot on the Tesla Model D, which will come to market throughout next year.

Musk was very careful to point out that there's a difference between "autonomous" driving and "autopilot." The former sounds more like what Google's driverless cars are seeking: "You can go to sleep and wake up at your destination," Musk explained. Autopilot, he said, is "what they have in airplanes. For example, we use the same term they use in airplanes, where there's still an expectation there will be a pilot. The onus is on the pilot to make sure that the autopilot is doing the right thing."

Does a company have a First Amendment right to spam the crap out of you on behalf of your friends who (via a browsewrap license terms-of-service agreement that they never read) said that they wanted to contact you (only once)?

Whew, that's a mouthful, but that's pretty much what LinkedIn is arguing to Judge Lucy Koh, who's presiding over yet another tech trial in Silicon Valley. Judge Koh previously ruled that users had consented to an initial email invitation to friends, but not necessarily to the multiple follow-ups.

Now, LinkedIn is arguing that it has a free-speech right to "facilitate associations among people and therefore concern matters of public interest," reports MediaPost.

You have a small firm. You want to be "connected" at all times. If an important client calls, you want to be able to answer that call, whether you are in the office, on the road, or making s'mores in the mountains (assuming you have cell service up there).

This is what Google Voice used to be good at: forwarding incoming calls from your Google Voice phone number to anywhere (landline, cell, computer). But, the app hadn't been updated in years for either iOS or Android. Plus, it was pretty much for incoming calls only -- dial out on your phone and you've just given that client your cell number. (There was a workaround for Android that spoofed your Google Voice number, but thanks to the core app's stagnation, it was a pain to use.)

Well, Google just fixed everything. Kinda. Google Voice is now (mostly) integrated in its Hangouts app, which means a free business phone number, free VoIP services to the U.S. and Canada, free texting, and only a slight headache, though we'll try to simplify it a bit.

While Google has created a concept driverless car, Cadillac has decided that 2017 will be the year that we surrender to our robot overlords. That's when it will release to the general public a car with "limited automated driving capabilities." Details are very slim, but it probably won't be as terrifying as Skynet or as awesome as KITT.

With increased automation, though, comes the question: When there's an accident in a driverless car, who will be responsible? The manufacturer? The driver? What if the driver wasn't driving; should he have been? It's a thought experiment that's coming closer and closer to reality.

For anyone who has graduated in the last ten years from law school: How did you take notes in class? For the vast majority of us, it was on a laptop. And we communicate with professors either through email or in person.

This is not news, unless you're sitting on the Supreme Court.

But, recently, I've been noticing a growing backlash: professors barring laptops from class or refusing to take emails from students. Even outside of the university system, it's happening. The Los Angeles Unified School District had a botched attempt at issuing iPads to its students which was just cancelled after a lot of expense and bad publicity.

In each of these examples, the same reason is provided: It's too much of a headache.

In the tech industry, a company may only be as strong as its non-compete agreement -- at least that's what Amazon thinks. Back in 2010, Amazon sued a former Sales VP Daniel Powers, after he accepted a new role at Google. In a bit of déjà vu, Amazon is again suing another one of its former employees that went to Google.

Will this case be more successful? We'll have to wait and see.

Aereo's tiny little personal antennas have had television broadcasters up in arms, but today the Supreme Court handed the broadcasters a win.

Back in March, Aereo founder Chet Kanojia was so confident in his position that he defiantly proclaimed that he has no Plan B should the Court rule against his company. Today, he issued a statement calling the Court's decision "a massive setback for the American consumer." He added, "We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world."

Let's take a look at the Court's legal analysis in coming to its decision.