Intellectual Property - Legal Technology - Technologist
Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Category

Two great things are better together, right? Captain Kirk and Dr. Spock. Green eggs and ham. Green eggs and ham and Dr. Spock.

Well, that last one may be going a bit far, at least according to Dr. Seuss Enterprises. The company is currently suing the creators of "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go!" a mash up between Dr. Seuss's works and the Star Trek universe that, according to its authors, was meant to combine "two of the most beloved creations in history in a joyous celebration" -- or, if you're Dr. Seuss Enterprises, to rip off their intellectual property through the "slavish copying" of protected works.

Donald Trump was elected president on Tuesday and many are just now starting to look closely at what a Trump administration might be like, for the Supreme Court, for businesses, and for intellectual property law and technological innovation.

Here's what we know, what we don't, and what might be in store.

Robots are humans too, right? Well, not exactly. But as artificial intelligence and machine learning continue to advance, some are arguing that the resulting technology could deserve basic rights -- a recognition of a sort of "electronic personhood."

In Europe, at least, the idea is getting some traction. A recent draft report by the European Union's Committee on Legal Affairs calls for the consideration of whether robots may be entitled to legal rights -- and how to hold them civilly liable should autonomous robots injure others.

Who Owns the Creation of an Artificial Intelligence?

This question is becoming increasingly relevant every day: who owns the product of an artificial intelligence?

Why, the owner of the machine, of course. But is that answer really quite so obvious? After all, who owns the machine if the machine itself is difficult to define? And even more curious, can an intelligence be owned? And should it?

LinkedIn, the Facebook for resumes, has filed suit in the Northern District of California against 100 unnamed individuals accused of using bots to scrape information from its website. The suit accuses the Doe defendants of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal anti-hacking law.

The lawsuit comes just barely a month after the Ninth Circuit expanded the reach of the CFAA, ruling in two cases that the CFAA could criminalize unauthorized password sharing and could impose civil liability for misusing a social network. The LinkedIn suit, though, could seek to push the reach of the CFAA even further.

KickassTorrents Owner Indicted for IP Law Violations

The U.S. wants Artem Vaulin of KickassTorrents extradited from the Ukraine to American soil to face various charges related to his site's illegal distribution of more than $1 billion in media. According to CNN, the Ukrainian man, age 30, was arrested in Poland just days ago.

The case is simply the latest in a series of high profile copyright infringement suits that have involved household names like Napster, Megaupload and Limewire. This bust is another massive blow to the online infringer community -- or is it?

If you haven't noticed, the world has been invaded by Pokemon -- or at least, Pokemon Go. The new "augmented reality" game has millions of users wandering the streets, chasing after Pikachus and Squirtles. And, of course, it has legal implications, from its connection to armed robberies and dead bodies to concerns over data privacy.

In that way, Pokemon Go is a pretty typical video game, for such games often connect to the law in some shape or form. To help you keep on top of your gaming trends, then, here are our top posts about video games and the law, from the FindLaw archives.

Way back in March, you might have seen a story about agitators who were paid over $3,000 a person to protest outside Trump rallies. Or maybe you spotted the story about President Obama limiting American gun ownership to three guns per person, max? None of them were true, but you could be forgiven for being duped. Both came from, a fake news website designed to trick the unsuspecting.

And when it comes to .co's, it's easy to confuse them for .com's. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why .co domains are the number one source of disputes before the World Intellectual Property Organization, as Doug Isenberg reports on Gigalaw blog.

We have to hand it to Massachusetts attorney Richard Goren. When faced with a negative review on Ripoff Report, he didn't just win a defamation victory (alright, it was by default, so it's not too impressive), he convinced the court to transfer him ownership over the copyright of the negative post, in a clever attempt to get around laws that protect websites hosting user-generated content.

But not everyone is amused by Goren's legal maneuvering. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen have filed an amicus brief in Goren's case against Ripoff Report, arguing that Goren's move is an abuse of intellectual property protections.

DOJ: Apple v. Samsung Should Go Back to Lower Court

The IP battle between tech companies Apple and Samsung got a little weirder recently with the involvement of the Department of Justice, which filed an amicus urging the Supreme Court to send the case back down to the deciding federal trial court in order to determine the appropriate damages.

The Supreme Court is not beholden to the DOJ by any means. But if the advice is heeded, it could mean years more of legal wrangling in the courts. But interestingly, this IP battle might enrich other parties besides the lawyers.