Tipp Sheet 1.1

An Apple a Day Keeps a Samsung Veto at Bay?

In the latest battle of the Apple-Samsung patent infringement war, the U.S. International Trade Commission took a hard stance against both companies in October, blocking the import and sale of select Apple and Samsung smartphones and tablets. The Obama Administration then stepped in, vetoing the Apple products ban because the Samsung patents they utilized were standard-essential and fairly licensed. President Obama did not veto the ban on infringing Samsung products. However, because the Samsung products at issue are older devices, they are unlikely to affect either company in any appreciable way. Still, critics accuse the Administration of kowtowing to political pressure in the face of domestic favoritism, particularly because executive overrides of ITC decisions are exceedingly rare, the last one having occurred in 1987. (Source: Bloomberg)

FindTheBest Finds Possible Secret Weapon Against Patent Trolls

Lumen View Technology, a tried-and-true patent troll, has recently filed suit against FindTheBest.com, a startup comparison shopping website. Patent trolls prey on fledgling e-businesses like FindTheBest, expecting them to pay out and forego the risks of litigation. But FindTheBest has called Lumen’s bluff, raising a novel RICO claim in a countersuit by alleging that the shell companies patent trolls create to pursue their suits amount to an illegal conspiracy. Lumen is now on the defensive. If FindTheBest proves successful, RICO may just be the penny that derails the patent troll gravy train, once and for all. (Source: Business Week)

Europe Not So Amazed with NSA

On October 20th, an influential European Parliament committee approved current drafts of legislation that would require American companies like Google and Yahoo to gain clearance from European officials before complying with U.S. warrants seeking European citizens’ private data. Although the legislation has been under consideration for two years, it has recently been pushed in light of continuing revelations surrounding NSA spying programs. The legislation still needs approval by the full European Parliament and governments, which its drafters hope to finalize by next spring. (Source: New York Times)


Google Can't Just Beat the Wiretap Rap

In September, the 9th Circuit upheld a California District Court ruling that Google must face claims that its Street View and Gmail features both violated provisions of the U.S. Wiretap Act, a statute enacted by Congress long before the rise of the Internet. Regarding Gmail, the judge found that “it cannot conclude that any party…has consented to Google’s reading of e-mail for the purposes of creating user profiles or providing targeted advertising.” The judge also held that Google may have violated the Act by gathering data from unencrypted open wireless networks while gathering images of roadways and houses for Street View. (Source: Bloomberg)

Sue Me Once, Shame on You; Sue Me Twice...

In September, two copyright suits were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against American Music Theater for its "Broadway: Now and Forever" production, which ran in Philadelphia between April and October of year. In both cases, plaintiffs allege that the production company failed to pay licensing fees for its use of songs from other Broadway musicals, while American Music Theater claims fair use. The first suit involved the unlicensed use of Disney songs. The second suit, filed two days later, counts the copyright owners of "Cats," "Les Miserables," and "Phantom of the Opera” among its plaintiffs. (Source: Lancaster Online)


Happy Lawsuit to You

The latest in a long string of lawsuits against its many copyright holders, a group of musicians and a filmmaker are jointly challenging the copyright of “Happy Birthday to You,” a song presently held by Warner/Chappell Music that dates back as early as 1893 and still collects over $2 million a year in licensing fees, though it is not entirely clear whether their ownership includes the lyrics in addition to the piano arrangement. Plaintiffs allege the copyright expired no later than 1921 and claim the 1935 copyright certificate held by Defendants is dubious at best. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California. (Source: Variety)