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

Recently in Intellectual Property Category

"Dear Piece of S---," began a response from Life360 CEO Chris Hulls to a demand letter from a company that wanted him to license their technology. (You can guess what three letters the dashes are subbing for.)

That letter was introduced by AGIS in a jury trial against Life360 for infringing on patents related to calling people who appeared on a map. It turned out, reported Ars Technica, that Hulls' testy language may have helped him secure a verdict of noninfringement.

You remember Kim Dotcom, right? The larger-than-life Internet entrepreneur from New Zealand, via Germany? The guy who changed his last name to "Dotcom" and made a mint operating the website Mega Upload? The U.S. government alleged Mega Upload wasn't the "digital locker" Dotcom claimed it was, but rather a website that encouraged -- and paid for -- the sharing of infringing content.

It was actually both of those, but the case has gone on because the United States wants to try him for violating U.S. law; New Zealand hasn't extradited him yet.

Here's a new idea: He's a "fugitive" because he refuses to extradite himself.

Apple suffered quite a setback Tuesday, when a federal jury handed down a $532.9 million verdict against it, in favor of patent licensing company Smartflash LLC. Smartflash claimed that Apple's iTunes software infringed on patents it held relating to downloading files from the Internet.

A look at the allegedly (or, I guess, not "allegedly" anymore) infringing patents, however, reveals that the only thing Smartflash patented is more of the same business method patents that the Supreme Court struck down in Alice v. CLS Bank.

After a drunken federal employee flew a drone over the White House lawn, the drone's manufacturer "announced that a new, mandatory firmware update would help users comply with" an FAA regulation that Washington, D.C., is a no-fly zone.

Of course, by "help users comply," the company -- DJI -- means that the new firmware will unilaterally disable drones' ability to fly within the no-fly zone.

Sony's Bullying Extends to a Copyright Battle With K-Pop Star

We've talked a lot about the Sony hack. And unless you've been living under a rock for the past month, you know that Sony (along with a number of theaters) decided to cancel the release of "The Interview" (the film that may have inspired the hack, which some have speculated was carried out by the North Korean government). Sony then decided to release the film on Christmas Day and online simultaneously.

In all of the hubbub over hacking, however, they forgot one small thing: to clear music samples for the film. According to Ars Technica, the studio is now negotating with Yoon Mi-rae over "Pay Day," a song that is used for approximately three minutes in "The Interview." The K-Pop star and the studio were negotiating before the film was released, but no deal was reached. And instead of waiting for a deal, Sony pushed forward, and released the film anyway.

But, despite the allegedly unauthorized use of the song, will the maneuver pay off for both parties?

Yesterday, a federal jury found that Apple's iTunes 7 updates, made between 2006 and 2009, weren't anticompetitive . The verdict caps 10 years of litigation alleging Apple locked other music providers out of its iPods.

There's been quite a bit of misreporting what's actually going on in this case, so we decided to clarify some of the facts and issues at play.

For a few weeks now, 11,000 gigabytes of information stolen from Sony by as-yet unknown hackers have been floating around the Internet. The eclectic data range from private, racially tinged jokes emailed between producer Scott Rudin and Sony exec Amy Pascal about President Obama's favorite movies, to ideas for ludicrous sequels (like a "21 Jump Street"/"Men in Black" crossover), to whole copies of finished, but unreleased, films.

Well, Sony's pretty sick of hearing about it. To that end, they've decided to hire attorney David Boies to make some legal threats via demand letters.

Remember the "monkey selfie"? Well it's back in the news, this time sans monkey.

In August, we blogged about the case of a black macaque (which, unlike a chimp, is properly called a "monkey") that pushed the shutter of photographer David Slater's camera while it was set up on a tripod.

Slater claimed that he owned the photograph, but we (along with others) concluded that the photo had no owner. Slater didn't create the photo, but a monkey isn't a "natural person," so it can't own anything. Now, Slater is taking his monkey selfie fight to copyright experts.

Rightscorp is a company that valiantly pursues copyright infringers in an attempt to get them to pay their fair share for the harm they've caused to copyright owners.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that Rightscorp "asks ISPs to disconnect you from the Internet unless you pay it money for alleged, unproven copyright infringements." A class action suit being filed in the Central District of California seeks to figure out the truth.

Google Asks SCOTUS to Rescue Android From Oracle, Fed. Cir.

Is Android a byproduct of copyright infringement? It's a heck of a question, one that has no easy answer.

Google used bits of Oracle's Java APIs when it built Android. APIs (application programming interfaces) are the tools used to carry out functions on a computer. No one disputes this. But Oracle claims that it had a copyright on its APIs, while Google argues that APIs aren't copyrightable at all.

So far, the lower courts have split. A district court agreed with Google that a "utilitarian and functional set of symbols" is the only "way to declare a given method functionality" and therefore cannot be copyrighted. The Federal Circuit, on the other hand, held that the APIs were copyrightable, but that a fair use defense might apply.

Google doesn't want to rely upon a possible fair use defense, so it has asked the Supreme Court to take the case, Reuters reports.