Technologist - The FindLaw Legal Technology Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Category

When it comes to consumer electronics, like computers, smart phones, or pretty much anything that holds a charge, even if it rolls on four wheels and is powered by fossil fuel, the FTC has a strong warning for manufacturers: Don't void warranties over third party repairs.

While a manufacturer can void a warranty if a third party, or product owner's own, repair is faulty, it can't void a warranty just by sheer virtue of the fact that an "unauthorized" person worked on the product, or if non-OEM parts were used for the repair. Although the FTC did not name names, at least not yet, the web-sleuths over at Ars Technica were able to put words into a Google searchbar and figure it out.

While the Apple Watch is a technological feat, a recently filed patent infringement lawsuit claims the device's heart monitoring technology was stolen.

As commentators seem to indicate, the case may be nothing more than a patent troll seeking to extort a settlement. The fact that the plaintiff hails from Michigan and Apple from California begs the question of why the case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Although experienced patent litigators know that venue as the country's most favorable venue for patent holders and a popular one for patent trolls, a recent SCOTUS decision means the Apple Watch case is likely not going to be sticking around the Texas federal court for very long.

Blackberry Sues Snap Over Messaging Technology

Blackberry phones are not around much anymore, but new Blackberry lawsuits are getting around.

The company has sued Facebook, Instagram, and now Snap for allegedly infringing on its messaging patents. Back in the day, BBM messaging was the bomb.

But lagging behind competition from Apple, Samsung, and other smartphone makers, Blackberry sold its cell phone rights two years ago and is pursuing other strategies -- like litigation.

A Federal District Court of Appeals decision in Oracle v. Google could leave the search giant on the hook for billions in damages to Oracle. The appeal is making headlines not just over the potentially astronomical damages, but also due to the discussion of fair use when it comes to code copyrights.

The appellate court overturned the lower court's jury verdict finding that Google's use of Oracle's copyrighted Java APIs in the Android software was fair use. In the de novo review, it explained that while certain "historical facts" relevant to the issue of fair use can be decided by a jury, the matter is largely an issue of law that a court may decide after appropriate fact finding. Now Google faces a third trial in this matter, but unfortunately for everyone's favorite search engine, this time around, it'll only be about damages.

Despite all the hype, the cryptocurrency game seems to be filled with risks beyond just the usual risk of financial loss that comes along with any investment activity. And beyond the security issues that come along with decentralized, non-fiat currencies, users also need to be careful about who they choose to handle their digital transactions.

The cryptocurrency payment processor Payza was recently charged, criminally, with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, conspiracy to launder money, as well as conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. These charges stem from allegations that the service and its co-founders, the Patel brothers, over a six year period of time, helped to launder $250 million worth of proceeds from child pornography, ponzi schemes and other illegal activities.

People scrambling to delete their Bitcoin Blockchain ledgers due to the child pornography scare may want to hold off -- that is, if the folks can be trusted. As commentators have noted, Bitcoin's response discusses links to child pornography, and curiously omits discussing the image that the researchers claim to have found buried in the Blockchain.

It's no secret that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can be favored by criminals for the whole "crypto" anonymous feature. But recently a team of researchers claim that downloading the Blockchain that Bitcoin is based upon is a criminal act because there is child pornography stored in the data.

Special Effects Firm Sues to Destroy Your DVDs

Fortunately, some things are legally impossible to enforce.

That's why we have legal principles such as "acts of God," or "impossibility of performance." And then there are those "rights" that cannot be enforced because, well, they are "ridiculous."

It's a good thing, too, especially if you want to keep your copies of "Guardians of the Galaxy," "Avengers: Age of UItron" and "Beauty and the Beast." A visual effects firm has sued to destroy them all.

Study: Lenient Patent Examiners May Have Caused Patent Trolls

Who gave birth to the dreaded Patent Troll?

Was it Greed? Was it Opportunity? Was it the Jabberwocky?

No, according to a new study, it was the Lenient Patent Examiner. Patent trolls, economists say, were born at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Does Snapchat Really Get Sued So Much?

Snapchat recently disclosed it paid $157.5 million to an ousted founder, a relatively small price to pay for a company that was valued at $25 billion when it went public.

The disclosure prompted speculation about "why Snapchat gets sued so much." But is that really true, or is that an example of muddy downstream media -- recycled mainstream media stories sprinkled with a little speculation?

It's hard to say, but we know that Snapchat is no Uber when it comes to lawsuits. Here are some comparisons:

Uber and Waymo Settle Mid Trial

In the middle of a two week trial, news of a settlement shocked reporters and courtroom observers, who had all come to watch the Uber v. Waymo trial drama unfold, in real life, in San Francisco. And while Waymo's billion dollar demand went unfulfilled before trial, Uber was willing to break off about a quarter billion dollars worth of equity and a public apology (if you could call this Uber blog post a public apology).

The self-driving technology case involved trade secret violations relating to Waymo's self-driving tech. It was alleged that Uber poached Waymo's employee, who downloaded a bunch of files before leaving and was involved in developing Waymo's tech personally.