tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27076778795537375122024-03-05T05:42:26.677-05:00The MTTLR BlogThe official blog of the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review at the University of Michigan Law School.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-45008392244057350332009-03-02T23:52:00.002-05:002009-03-03T22:40:26.842-05:00Migrating the MTTLR BlogWe're moving the MTTLR blog to a new server and a new blogging platform. We hope that this migration will allow us to post more frequently, and to include more timely contributions. Please come join us at <a href="http://www.mttlrblog.org">http://www.mttlrblog.org</a>.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-79643719260669078402009-02-11T20:21:00.004-05:002009-02-11T20:28:16.112-05:00Tiffany v. eBay – Transnational Trademark Problems?<span style="font-size: 85%;"><i>by <a href="mailto:xjeffl@umich.edu">Jeff Liu </a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</i></span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib7PS1QWLNwuri6MZlFtlw7xqXUaxi1dQ9qZXwbC17Cl3GiCdisZGc-xhCmJjqauTcazeVbCsGjPV3C5x0a5VUDvvgaWUNzmS3QGp25soNaE5Uh552tBuFAPZTxa9q-eKQZsKA-DldA6Y/s1600-h/Jeff-logoEbay_x45.gif"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 110px; height: 45px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib7PS1QWLNwuri6MZlFtlw7xqXUaxi1dQ9qZXwbC17Cl3GiCdisZGc-xhCmJjqauTcazeVbCsGjPV3C5x0a5VUDvvgaWUNzmS3QGp25soNaE5Uh552tBuFAPZTxa9q-eKQZsKA-DldA6Y/s200/Jeff-logoEbay_x45.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301716237330619298" /></a>Last summer, a federal district court ruled, in <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/tiffany_v_ebay/tiffany-v-ebay-dct.pdf">Tiffany v. Ebay</a>, that online marketplace <a href="http://www.ebay.com/">eBay</a> was not liable under trademark and unfair competition law for facilitating the sale of counterfeit items on its website. The court noted that it is a “Trademark owner’s burden to police its mark, and companies like eBay cannot be held liable for trademark infringement based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring.” Some U.S.-based commentators <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/tiffany_v_ebay_1.htm">praised the decision</a>; others were <a href="http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2008/07/tiffany-blue.html">somewhat more critical</a>. Few, however, commented on the way this decision has the potential to the put the U.S. directly at odds with several key European Union countries on contributory liability for trademark violations. <br /><br />While this decision represents a victory for eBay and other online marketplaces in the United States, courts in other countries have shown less sympathy for eBay. Especially in European jurisdictions decisions have tilted in support of trademark holders rather than the operator(s) of online marketplaces. Several judicial decisions handed down by countries in the European are opposite to the decision handed down in <i>Tiffany Inc</i>. Two important decisions highlight the conflict at hand. On June 30, 2008, a French court <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKPAB00415820080701">ordered eBay to pay 61 million dollars</a> in compensation to LVHM for allowing the sale of fake merchandise on its website.<sup> </sup>Just a month earlier, another French court had ordered eBay to pay Hermes a compensation of 20,000 Euros for the sale of counterfeit merchandise on its website. And both of these decisions come in light of <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKN2736988920070727">decision by a German appeals court in April, 2008 against eBay</a> on the same issue. The German appeals court ruled eBay had to take preventive measures against the sale of fake Rolexes on its website. Both the French and German courts seem to have taken the position that eBay has a responsibility to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods on its website, but the U.S. court has taken the opposite position, that the burden falls onto the holder of the trademark. In an increasingly global marketplace, this conflict will have to be resolved.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-49154351470671828922009-02-10T09:14:00.004-05:002009-02-10T09:21:04.387-05:00Testing the Scope of Fuel Economy Standard Preemption: The New York Taxicab Cases<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:jney@umich.edu">Joshua E. Ney</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 10px 20px 0px; float: left; width: 220px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhExs0dByuxMBZAw4U95Ov6ySDuNaCUyY-bcYAoOg-5duEOUc-rKr70Loz06YQNW7ec2ZcVrswuvd7oDjbEREtZIm-h0uBuL47jPHQoiM4AZab4XiPdtfIK2SiMkuJcaGcAeKtfUl9JuN8/s1600-h/neypost-feedingfrenzy-54east-bync.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhExs0dByuxMBZAw4U95Ov6ySDuNaCUyY-bcYAoOg-5duEOUc-rKr70Loz06YQNW7ec2ZcVrswuvd7oDjbEREtZIm-h0uBuL47jPHQoiM4AZab4XiPdtfIK2SiMkuJcaGcAeKtfUl9JuN8/s200/neypost-feedingfrenzy-54east-bync.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301172831674374242" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/roaldv/2329864222/">Feeding Frenzy</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/roaldv/">54east</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prescribes corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN1anc" HREF="#neyFN1sym">1</A></SUP> The CAFE standards specify a minimum fleet-wide average fuel economy applicable to manufacturers in a given model year.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN2anc" HREF="#neyFN2sym">2</A></SUP><br /><br />Since the enactment of the EPCA, the NHTSA has exercised this authority with relatively unchallenged exclusivity. The EPCA’s express preemption clause forbids States to “adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN3anc" HREF="#neyFN3sym">3</A></SUP> Until recently, few states had sought to regulate automobile fuel economy, and no court had determined that a state or local law violated this preemption clause. That changed on October 31, 2008, when a federal judge blocked the implementation of a new rule promulgated by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC).<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN4anc" HREF="#neyFN4sym">4</A></SUP> The ongoing legal battle is giving courts their first opportunity to define the scope of EPCA preemption.<br /><br /><h2>The 2007 Rule: Preemption of State-Mandated Fuel Economy Standards</h2>On December 11, 2007,<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN5anc" HREF="#neyFN5sym">5</A></SUP> the TLC approved a rule (the “2007 Rule”) requiring all taxicabs coming into service on or after October, 1, 2008, to have “a minimum city rating of twenty-five (25) miles per gallon.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN6anc" HREF="#neyFN6sym">6</A></SUP> Beginning October 1, 2009, the 2007 Rule would require all taxicabs coming into service to have a minimum rating of thirty (30) miles per gallon.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN7anc" HREF="#neyFN7sym">7</A></SUP> In contrast, most of the current taxicabs in the City achieve only 12–14 miles per gallon.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN8anc" HREF="#neyFN8sym">8</A></SUP><br /><br />In September 2008, a coalition of affected parties filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting that the EPCA preempted the 2007 Rule.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN9anc" HREF="#neyFN9sym">9</A></SUP> The plaintiffs included the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade (MTBOT), a trade association made up of taxicab fleets in the City.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN10anc" HREF="#neyFN10sym">10</A></SUP> The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the issue of preemption.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN11anc" HREF="#neyFN11sym">11</A></SUP> In the court’s view, “Congress’s undoubted intent was to make the setting of fuel economy standards exclusively a federal concern.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN12anc" HREF="#neyFN12sym">12</A></SUP> Thus, the 2007 Rule fell squarely within the “ordinary meaning” of the EPCA’s preemption clause.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN13anc" HREF="#neyFN13sym">13</A></SUP> The court rejected the City’s argument that the preemption clause only applies to fuel economy standards as they relate to manufacturers or sellers (as opposed to consumers, such as taxi owners).<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN14anc" HREF="#neyFN14sym">14</A></SUP><br /><br /><h2>The 2008 Rule: Preemption of Voluntary Fuel Economy Incentives?</h2>Following the district court decision, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the City would replace the enjoined 2007 Rule with “a series of initiatives to increase the use of fuel efficient and environmentally friendly taxicabs, through new financial incentives.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN15anc" HREF="#neyFN15sym">15</A></SUP> The incentives proposed by the Mayor (the “2008 Rule”) involve the City’s taxicab “lease cap” system. Under the “lease cap” system, a taxicab owner leasing his or her licensed taxicab to a driver may not charge a lease rate greater than the Standard Lease Cap.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN16anc" HREF="#neyFN16sym">16</A></SUP> The Standard Lease Cap currently ranges from $105 to $129 per shift, depending on the time of the shift.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN17anc" HREF="#neyFN17sym">17</A></SUP> Under the proposed 2008 Rule, fleet owners leasing fuel efficient vehicles will be allowed to charge drivers an additional $3 per shift, while the lease cap applicable to owners of non-fuel efficient vehicles will decrease by $12.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN18anc" HREF="#neyFN18sym">18</A></SUP> These incentives are intended to compensate for the higher cost of purchasing fuel efficient vehicles.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN19anc" HREF="#neyFN19sym">19</A></SUP><br /><br />The precise contours of the 2008 Rule will not be clear until the TLC completes a formal rulemaking process.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN20anc" HREF="#neyFN20sym">20</A></SUP> However, the president of the MTBOT has already voiced his intention to challenge the Rule.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN21anc" HREF="#neyFN21sym">21</A></SUP> This legal challenge will tee up a novel question regarding the scope of EPCA preemption: May a State or political subdivision adopt <I>voluntary incentive programs</I> to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles where it could not have <I>mandated</I> the purchase of such vehicles?<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN22anc" HREF="#neyFN22sym">22</A></SUP><br /><br />To resolve this question, the court will need to determine whether the 2008 Rule is “<I>related to</I> fuel economy standards” within the meaning of the EPCA’s preemption clause. In general, where a federal statute contains an express preemption clause, the preemption determination rests on the “plain wording” of the clause.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN23anc" HREF="#neyFN23sym">23</A></SUP> In this case, however, the preemption clause’s use of “related to” language renders a simple “plain wording” analysis problematic.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN24anc" HREF="#neyFN24sym">24</A></SUP> The Supreme Court has pointed out that “[i]f ‘relate to’ were taken to extend to the furthest stretch of its indeterminacy, then for all practical purposes preemption would never run its course, [and the effect would be] to read the presumption against preemption out of the law.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN25anc" HREF="#neyFN25sym">25</A></SUP> Rather, the court must “go beyond the unhelpful text and the frustrating difficulty of defining [‘related to’] and look instead to the objectives of the [EPCA] as a guide to the scope of the state law that Congress understood would survive.”<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN26anc" HREF="#neyFN26sym">26</A></SUP><br /><br />In light of this guidance, the court must answer the following question to determine whether the EPCA preempts the 2008 Rule: In enacting the EPCA, did Congress intend to withdraw from the States the authority to provide economic incentives influencing consumer choices with respect to vehicle fuel economy? If the answer is yes, then the 2008 Rule “relates to” fuel economy standards, and the EPCA preempts the Rule. If the answer is no, then the 2008 Rule does not “relate to” fuel economy standards and survives EPCA preemption.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN27anc" HREF="#neyFN27sym">27</A></SUP> This case will present a matter of first impression for the court. Furthermore, the Committee reports accompanying the bill that became the EPCA did not discuss the intended scope of the statute’s preemption clause.<SUP><A CLASS="neyFNanc" NAME="neyFN28anc" HREF="#neyFN28sym">28</A></SUP> Thus, it is difficult to predict how the court will rule. Stay tuned.<br /><hr><span style="font-size:85%;"><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN1sym" HREF="#neyFN1anc">1</A> The EPCA directs the United States Secretary of Transportation to prescribe the CAFE standards. <A HREF="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html">49 U.S.C. § 32902(a) (2006).</A> The Secretary has delegated this authority to the NHTSA. <A HREF="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/49cfr1.50.pdf">49 C.F.R. § 1.50(f) (2006)</A>.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN2sym" HREF="#neyFN2anc">2</A> <A HREF="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html">49 U.S.C. § 32901(a)(6)</A>.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN3sym" HREF="#neyFN3anc">3</A> <A HREF="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html">49 U.S.C. § 32919(a)</A> (“When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under [the EPCA] is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under [the EPCA].”)<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN4sym" HREF="#neyFN4anc">4</A> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/city_room/20081031_Crottydecision.pdf">Metro. Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York</A>, No. 08 Civ. 7837 (PAC), 2008 WL 4866021 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN5sym" HREF="#neyFN5anc">5</A> Press Release, New York City Taxi & Limo. Comm’n, <A HREF="http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/press_release_12_11_07.pdf">TLC Unanimously Approves Regulations Leading to a <I>Cleaner, Greener</I> NY Taxi Fleet</A> (Dec. 11. 2007).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN6sym" HREF="#neyFN6anc">6</A> New York, N.Y., TLC Rule <A HREF="http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/specrules.pdf">§ 3-03(c)(10)</A> (2008).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN7sym" HREF="#neyFN7anc">7</A> TLC Rule <A HREF="http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/specrules.pdf">§ 3-03(c)(11)</A>.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN8sym" HREF="#neyFN8anc">8</A> William Neuman, <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/nyregion/15taxis.html"><I>As First Plan Stalls, Mayor Tries New Push for Green Taxis</I></A>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps">N.Y. Times</span>, Nov. 14, 2008.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN9sym" HREF="#neyFN9anc">9</A> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/city_room/20081031_Crottydecision.pdf"><I>Metro. Taxicab</I></A>, 2008 WL 4866021, at *1.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN10sym" HREF="#neyFN10anc">10</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN11sym" HREF="#neyFN11anc">11</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN12sym" HREF="#neyFN12anc">12</A> <I>Id.</I> at *8 (quoting <I>Green Mountain</I>, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 307).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN13sym" HREF="#neyFN13anc">13</A> <I>Id.</I> at *9.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN14sym" HREF="#neyFN14anc">14</A> <I>Id.</I> (citing <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-1343P.ZO"><I>Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.</I></A>, 541 U.S. 246 (2004), (holding that a state law that restricted emissions in new vehicles was preempted by the Clean Air Act regardless of whether it targeted purchasers or manufacturers.))<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN15sym" HREF="#neyFN15anc">15</A> Press Release, Office of the Mayor, New York City, <A HREF="http://www.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http://www.nyc.gov:80/html/om/html/2008b/pr455-08.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1">Mayor Bloomberg Announces New Incentive/Disincentive Program to Reach Goal of Green Taxi Fleet</A> (Nov. 14, 2008). <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN16sym" HREF="#neyFN16anc">16</A> <span style="font-variant: small-caps">New York, N.Y., TLC Rule</span> <A HREF="http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/ownrules.pdf">§ 1-78(a)</A> (2008).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN17sym" HREF="#neyFN17anc">17</A> <span style="font-variant: small-caps">TLC Rule</span> § 1-78(a)(1). <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN18sym" HREF="#neyFN18anc">18</A> Press release, Office of the Mayor, New York City, <I>supra</I> note 15.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN19sym" HREF="#neyFN19anc">19</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN20sym" HREF="#neyFN20anc">20</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN21sym" HREF="#neyFN21anc">21</A> Neuman, <I>supra</I> note 8.<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN22sym" HREF="#neyFN22anc">22</A> <I>Cf.</I> <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-1343P.ZO"><I>Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.</I></A>, 541 U.S. 246, 255 (2004), (declining to resolve the application of Clean Air Act preemption to voluntary incentive programs). <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN23sym" HREF="#neyFN23anc">23</A> <A HREF="http://www.vtd.uscourts.gov/Supporting Files/Cases/05cv302.pdf">Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie</A>, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 351 (D. Vt. 2007).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN24sym" HREF="#neyFN24anc">24</A> <I>See</I> <I>Id.</I> at 353. <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN25sym" HREF="#neyFN25anc">25</A> <I>See</I> <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1408.ZO.html">New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co.</A>, 514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995) (cited in <I>Green Mountain</I>, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 353).<br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN26sym" HREF="#neyFN26anc">26</A> <I>See</I> <I>Green Mountain</I>, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 353 (quoting <I>Travelers</I> 514 U.S. at 656). <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN27sym" HREF="#neyFN27anc">27</A> In context of the federal ERISA statute, whose express preemption clause also includes broad “relate to” language, the Supreme Court has found that a state program did not “relate to” the federal requirements where the state program “merely provide[d] some measure of economic incentive to comport with the State’s requirements.” <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-789.ZO.html">Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc.</A>, 519 U.S. 316, 332 (1997). <br /><A CLASS="neyFNsym" NAME="neyFN28sym" HREF="#neyFN28anc">28</A> <I>Green Mountain</I>, 508 F. Supp. 2d at 354.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-88022168501697235932009-02-10T08:21:00.003-05:002009-02-10T08:32:28.296-05:00Criminal charges for cell-phone self-portraits - more harm than good.<span style="font-size: 85%;">by <a href="mailto:melanie.persinger@gmail.com">Melanie Persinger</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 220px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEE3wpHYJEWP5cazSNgJ0JNUDR0r_mm2JFX9YjYJ3BBTySnQBdzJPTuTk8LSCTRKHUS654x9zV5nrsYnhR-s72sgB4rGSO044S1lGm1cofGSfUroJydwmtP5_Wm6qNh_lLOxvnxS3NIGE/s1600-h/persingerpost-lincoln-katyteapics.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEE3wpHYJEWP5cazSNgJ0JNUDR0r_mm2JFX9YjYJ3BBTySnQBdzJPTuTk8LSCTRKHUS654x9zV5nrsYnhR-s72sgB4rGSO044S1lGm1cofGSfUroJydwmtP5_Wm6qNh_lLOxvnxS3NIGE/s200/persingerpost-lincoln-katyteapics.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5301159674316364562" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/24932870@N04/2501628992/">Lincoln</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/24932870@N04/">Katy/teapics</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-SA 2.0</a> license.</span></div>As new technologies become part of our lives, teenagers figure out a way to use these technologies to do what it is they do best: get themselves into trouble. Cell phones and picture messaging are no exception. This fall, <A HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1">a fifteen-year-old girl in Ohio was arrested for taking nude photographs of herself and sending them to other minors</A>. The teenager was charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity oriented materials and possession of criminal tools under Ohio law <A HREF="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.323">2907.323(A)(3)</A>. The charges <A HREF="http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/810080302">could also qualify the girl to be classified as a sex offender</A>, requiring her to register annually. An Ohio prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, said that the <A HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1">other minors</A> who received the photographs might also be charged for possession of child pornography.<br /><br />The Ohio case was <A HREF="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/teen-girl-faces.html">recently settled</A> out of court, and the young woman in that case will <I>not</I> have to register as a sex offender. But the law at issue was Ohio’s version of <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00014071----000-.html">Megan’s law</A>, which has been <A HREF="http://www.megans-law.net/">enacted, with slight variations, in all fifty states</A> and the District of Columbia. This means that a similar case could potentially come up anywhere in the United States. In fact, the case in Ohio is by no means the first instance of a minor being faced with criminal charges for taking and sending, or posting online, nude photographs of themselves. According to <A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363438,00.html">Fox News</A>, “Similar cases have been reported in New Jersey, New York, Alabama, Utah, Pennsylvania, Texas and Connecticut.” <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html">Michigan and Florida</A> have also seen similar cases. Because this is a growing trend, it is important to ask ourselves if criminal charges are the appropriate way to deal with these teenagers’ misconduct.<br /><br />The aim of laws of this type (preventing sexual offenses against minors) is to prevent harm to the child. Proponents of the law in issue argue that this means protecting children from harm they could cause to themselves in addition to protecting them against harm caused by others. While the current law does this to a certain extent, it is also overly broad in that it imposes a different, and arguably worse, harm on the minor. It is true that once the photographs become public, they will likely haunt the teenager forever or could possibly end up in the hands of adults who are looking for child pornography, both of which are harms that we should be concerned about. However, imposing criminal charges will not undo the fact that the photograph(s) are now out in public. Additionally, imposing criminal charges, especially requiring the minor to register as a sex offender, is also likely to haunt them forever. It is hard to see how preventing harm to minors justifies imposing other harms on them: the stigma of a criminal record and being labeled as a sex offender.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-44777921807876908492008-12-03T08:40:00.001-05:002008-12-03T08:40:00.737-05:00Webcaster Settlement Act: Can it Really Save Internet Radio?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:adenhoff@umich.edu">Adam Denhoff</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 10px 20px 0px; float: left; width: 220px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg_5vby7qvBn4MRF4eWRxCFuAf_S4-ftAYqW1XxaDA04TSRITTdBpXlacS8ldZ8mhIG9TSzFPTem5a8V73dy9bsXeeE7nv9CHT1_F9y54vu7ziDLGRK7A6QUYHqvqjQtf42tw5qPpOvzA/s1600-h/denhoff-internetradio.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg_5vby7qvBn4MRF4eWRxCFuAf_S4-ftAYqW1XxaDA04TSRITTdBpXlacS8ldZ8mhIG9TSzFPTem5a8V73dy9bsXeeE7nv9CHT1_F9y54vu7ziDLGRK7A6QUYHqvqjQtf42tw5qPpOvzA/s200/denhoff-internetradio.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5275414181855128482" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktommy/107202101/">this is podcasting</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/ktommy/">Thomas Kamann</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en">BY 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Internet radio broadcasters were given renewed hope of long-term stability when President Bush signed the <A HREF="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h7084/show">Webcaster Settlement Act</A> in October. The Act allows webcasters and record labels to <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10055055-93.html">continue negotiating</A> for a reduced performance royalty rate while Congress is in recess, as it extends the deadline for a new deal to February 15, 2009. The issue stems from a <A HREF="http://www.dwt.com/practc/broadcast/bulletins/04-07_CRBDecision.htm">March, 2007 decision</A> by the <A HREF="http://www.loc.gov/crb/">Copyright Royalty Board</A> (CRB), which would force webcasters to pay for each song streamed to each user at a retroactive rate as follows: <br /><Blockquote>2006: $0.0008 per song, per listener<br />2007: $.0011<br />2008: $.0014<br />2009: $.0018<br />2010: $.0019</blockquote><A HREF="http://www.soundexchange.com/">SoundExchange</A>, the organization that represents artists and record labels, favors higher performance royalties because it believes that musicians deserve their <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367_2.html">fair share of Internet radio profits</A>. The <A HREF="http://www.digmedia.org/">Digital Media Association</A> (DiMA), a trade organization that represents a number of prominent webcasters including AOL Radio and Yahoo! Music, believes that the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board would bring about <A HREF="http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202425402074">the end of Internet radio</A> by forcing webcasters to pay outrageously high performance royalties at rates that they simply could not afford. <br /> <br />The <A HREF="http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml">Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN)</A> calculates that, assuming the average Internet broadcasting station plays 16 songs per hour, a webcaster would have a royalty obligation of 1.28 cents per listener hour in 2006 (which would skyrocket almost three-fold by 2010). These royalties would only cover use of the sound <I>recording</I>, and webcasters also have to pay an additional fee to holders of copyrights in the <I>composition</I>. Using the CRB’s proposed royalty structure, it would be nearly impossible for an Internet radio station to remain profitable, and most, if not all webcasters would be forced out of business. <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367_3.html">Tim Westergren</A>, the head of Pandora (one of the nation’s most popular Web radio services), believes that its royalty fees for this year could represent 70% of its projected $25 million dollar revenue. According to David Oxendide, a lawyer representing many smaller webcasters, CRB’s royalty structure would be a fatal blow to small and medium sized stations whose royalties would be between 100% and 300% of annual revenues. <br /> <br />Traditional radio broadcasters, like those represented by the <A HREF="http://www.nab.org/">National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)</A>, have seen web-based radio as a serious threat to their dominance. They <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10052221-93.html">lobbied against the Webcaster Settlement Act</A>. However, they <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10053014-93.html">retracted their aggressive opposition</A> to the Act when the negotiating deadline was extended to February 15; the extension will allow the NAB to negotiate its own performance royalty structure with SoundExchange. Today, <A HREF="http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-copyright-royalty-board-decision-on-music-royalties-clarifying-the-confusion.html">terrestrial radio broadcasters pay licensing fees only</A>, but SoundExchange is working to change that. <br /> <br />What does all this mean for Internet radio? Well, even <A HREF="http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202425402074">SoundExchange acknowledges</A> that the royalties in CRB’s model might be unworkably high. Nonetheless, <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367_3.html">SoundExchange officials complain</A> that Internet radio stations have done too little to turn a profit from streaming music on the web. <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367_3.html">Webcasters counter</A> by arguing that advertisers have yet to embrace Internet radio which makes it nearly impossible to get investment funding. <br /> <br />Although the music is industry is in shambles and record labels are desperate for new sources of revenue (i.e. performance royalties from online radio stations), perhaps biting the hand that feeds is not the right approach. A <A HREF="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/oct/18/musicians-to-talk-internet-royalties/">thriving source of online music</A> is essential for the survival of the music industry. Surely record companies would prefer that new music be spread via web-based radio rather than on illegal file sharing networks? Introducing performance royalties into <I>both</I> the digital and terrestrial radio schemes makes sense; why should radio stations be required to compensate the songwriter, but not the performer or record label for use of copyrighted material? However, the Recording Industry Association of America, SoundExchange, and DiMA should negotiate a performance royalty rate that benefits all parties by ensuring that Internet radio lives on. The impossible-to-interpret <A HREF="http://www.dwt.com/practc/broadcast/bulletins/04-07_CRBDecision.htm">“willing buyer, willing seller”</A> model utilized by the CRB is not a transparent approach. The Webcaster Settlement Act, which allows the parties to negotiate further, is a step in the right direction.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-53554888278640522382008-12-01T17:23:00.002-05:002008-12-01T17:26:19.134-05:00State-Funded Stem Cell Research and Benefit Sharing<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:hilaryjl@umich.edu">Hilary J. Libka</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; float: right; width: 260px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFEHdwUw2CcHoe8COYjtBBn4uBwDCcY994VZbijxoMiOw7ilz_9R9AGO5Uy_aIaAlSRM-5ybVBXbqwbd5DBH9CldPoGWqe6zCHT7I2k4wTsRKaRooVzFFRZS0wNGRla_jBLmmbblWQxVs/s1600-h/Libka+stem+cell+petri+dish.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFEHdwUw2CcHoe8COYjtBBn4uBwDCcY994VZbijxoMiOw7ilz_9R9AGO5Uy_aIaAlSRM-5ybVBXbqwbd5DBH9CldPoGWqe6zCHT7I2k4wTsRKaRooVzFFRZS0wNGRla_jBLmmbblWQxVs/s320/Libka+stem+cell+petri+dish.jpg" border="0" width="240px" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268881913845475010" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Stem Cell Petri Dish <br />by Hilary Libka.</span></div>Individual US states have been setting their own policies regarding human embryonic stem (hES) cell research - due to both the increased application of private and state money to hES cell research, and the federal government’s failure to change or expand its regulations and funding for this controversial science. While the majority of states restrict research on embryos, at least twelve states have now implemented public funding schemes for some type of stem cell research, and eight states permit or even channel funds specifically to hES cell research.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN1anc" HREF="#libkaFN1sym"><SUP>1</SUP></A> The states have organized funding through bond sales, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, executive expenditures, and legislative appropriations.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN2anc" HREF="#libkaFN2sym"><SUP>2</SUP></A> Depending on the state and award, the funds are either directed toward particular research projects or infrastructure development at public and private institutions as well as non-profit and for-profit organizations.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN3anc" HREF="#libkaFN3sym"><SUP>3</SUP></A> <br /><br />Public funding of stem cell research presents policy controversies that extend far beyond the science. Each state that participates must develop oversight for its investment and consider the potential outcomes of accelerating the market. One imminent issue that must be resolved is how the state should benefit from any intellectual property (IP) that may result from the funding. <br /> <br />The federal Bayh-Dole Act is one model states could look to for managing IP. The Act gives US universities, small businesses, and non-profit organizations the right to inventions developed through research funded by the federal government.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN4anc" HREF="#libkaFN4sym"><SUP>4</SUP></A> The government keeps a nonexclusive license to the invention (among several other rights), but no royalties are collected.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN5anc" HREF="#libkaFN5sym"><SUP>5</SUP></A> The biotech industry is pushing for this model at the state level.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN6anc" HREF="#libkaFN6sym"><SUP>6</SUP></A> On the other end of the spectrum, consumer advocates argue for a public ownership model, where the state would retain the rights to any patents resulting from public funding.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN7anc" HREF="#libkaFN7sym"><SUP>7</SUP></A> As a state that has been struggling with IP agreements, California is an important starting place to understand the complexities of benefit sharing in the realm of stem cell research funding.<br /><br /><H2>Case Study: California</H2><br />In November 2004, California became the largest source of funding for stem cell research in the world when voters passed Proposition 71 (a.k.a. the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act).<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN8anc" HREF="#libkaFN8sym"><SUP>8</SUP></A> The petition-driven initiative authorized the state to sell $3 billion in general obligation bond funds to be disbursed to in-state researchers over ten years.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN9anc" HREF="#libkaFN9sym"><SUP>9</SUP></A> Up to $350 million may be paid out annually, and the funding is guaranteed by the state, which pays the principal and interest costs with bond sales for the first five years of the program, then with state income taxes and sales tax.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN10anc" HREF="#libkaFN10sym"><SUP>10</SUP></A> Proposition 71 was incorporated as a politically-insulated state constitutional amendment: modifications are only possible with an unlikely 70% legislative majority and the governor’s signature.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN11anc" HREF="#libkaFN11sym"><SUP>11</SUP></A> High expectations are attached to the initiative, which was sold to voters on two points: (1) “Cures for California” and (2) economic benefits, such as IP revenues, reduced health care costs (state welfare programs and government employee benefits), and additional research activity (more jobs and taxable income).<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN12anc" HREF="#libkaFN12sym"><SUP>12</SUP></A> <br />Proposition 71 established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), a state oversight agency, to disburse funds to research organizations.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN13anc" HREF="#libkaFN13sym"><SUP>13</SUP></A> CIRM is also charged with regulating state-funded stem cell research activities.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN14anc" HREF="#libkaFN14sym"><SUP>14</SUP></A> This includes: <br /> <BLOCKQUOTE>[E]stablish[ing] standards that require that all grants and loan awards be subject to intellectual property agreements that balance the opportunity of the State of California to benefit from the patents, royalties, and licenses that result from basic research, therapy development, and clinical trials with the need to assure that essential medical research is not unreasonably hindered by the intellectual property agreements.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN15anc" HREF="#libkaFN15sym"><SUP>15</SUP></A></BLOCKQUOTE> Although this provision stresses that California should benefit from resulting technologies, it fails to specify how the benefit sharing should take place. The generality is especially striking given the tendency of the legislation to delineate CIRM elements narrowly (sometimes too narrowly, as with the composition of the governing board and working groups, none of which included any legal experts).<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN16anc" HREF="#libkaFN16sym"><SUP>16</SUP></A> Initial uncertainty and qualms about transparency and accountability have slowed the process of developing IP standards.<BR> Early lawsuits tried to overturn Proposition 71 by claiming CIRM was unconstitutional; complaints focused on CIRM’s validity as a public agency and its members’ affiliations with patient advocacy groups, biotech companies, and research institutions.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN17anc" HREF="#libkaFN17sym"><SUP>17</SUP></A> A $150 million loan to CIRM from the governor kept the program afloat while the initial legal issues were resolved,<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN18anc" HREF="#libkaFN18sym"><SUP>18</SUP></A> but these “built-in conflicts of interest” continue to plague operations. Both pro- and anti-hES cell research advocates have raised ethical concerns, and in 2008, the state Controller audited CIRM’s grant approval process.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN19anc" HREF="#libkaFN19sym"><SUP>19</SUP></A><br /> <br /> Most recently and against steep odds, the state legislature successfully passed Senate Bill 1565, which called for a study of the governance structure of the program by the independent Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN20anc" HREF="#libkaFN20sym"><SUP>20</SUP></A> SB 1565 also would have forced a ceiling on the price of drugs resulting from CIRM-funded research and required a plan from funded organizations that would make the drugs accessible to uninsured Californians.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN21anc" HREF="#libkaFN21sym"><SUP>21</SUP></A> Although Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill because of its restrictions on CIRM’s authority to adopt IP standards, the oversight commission has announced it will still proceed with its investigation.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN22anc" HREF="#libkaFN22sym"><SUP>22</SUP></A><br /> <br /> In March 2008, after two years of research and debate, the CIRM governing board finally approved IP standards for the funding program.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN23anc" HREF="#libkaFN23sym"><SUP>23</SUP></A> Like the Bayh-Dole model, nonprofit organizations receiving public funds may retain their patents and must share net revenues with individual inventors.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN24anc" HREF="#libkaFN24sym"><SUP>24</SUP></A> But unlike the Bayh-Dole model, after a threshold amount of revenues and in proportion to CIRM’s support, the organization must pay 25% of its share to the state’s General Fund; the rest may only be used to support scientific research or education.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN25anc" HREF="#libkaFN25sym"><SUP>25</SUP></A> Meanwhile, for-profit organizations also keep their patents, but the state gets 25% of royalties on licenses after a threshold amount as well as a fraction (2-5% unless a blockbuster drug, which generates more than $250 million of revenue annually) of the revenues from any products commercialized by the organizations.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN26anc" HREF="#libkaFN26sym"><SUP>26</SUP></A> Furthermore, for-profit organizations must sell products at low prices to California’s discount prescription drug program.<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN27anc" HREF="#libkaFN27sym"><SUP>27</SUP></A> <br /> <br /> And yet, even with these new explicit standards, the uncertainty persists. CIRM’s agenda for its latest IP meeting included, "Consideration of draft amendments to consolidate non-profit and for-profit intellectual property regulations and begin formal process of adoption."<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN28anc" HREF="#libkaFN28sym"><SUP>28</SUP></A> CIRM has also been considering additional in-state discounts, and Californians, especially the state legislature, will continue considering CIRM. Although the state has been successful in attracting biotechnology,<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN29anc" HREF="#libkaFN29sym"><SUP>29</SUP></A> “[CIRM] is still an unknown quantity, and that spooks the biotech industry.”<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN30anc" HREF="#libkaFN30sym"><SUP>30</SUP></A> Several company executives and investors have been echoing the concerns of one general counsel: “We will take CIRM money last. We don’t want to be in a position where, years from now, we are actually forced to sell [our products] in California at a loss.”<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN31anc" HREF="#libkaFN31sym"><SUP>31</SUP></A> <br /><br /><H2>Moving Forward</H2><br />The sheer dollar value of California’s funding continues to attract the stem cell industry despite uncertainty regarding public access requirements and other forms of benefit sharing. What about states thinking of or already implementing smaller stem cell research funds? Can they afford to promise a program that will “pay for itself,” followed by years of figuring out how to “pay back the taxpayers”?<A CLASS="libkaFNanc" NAME="libkaFN32anc" HREF="#libkaFN32sym"><SUP>32</SUP></A> <br /> <br /> IP revenues and restrictions are great selling points to taxpayers but terrible incentives for industry. The program is useless if it fails to attract participants. When it comes to access issues, which consumers should receive a discount? If beneficiaries of government programs and the uninsured are covered for new medical treatments, is that fair to the insured taxpayer whose insurance may not cover the treatment and whose rates will probably go up regardless of coverage? By what time do you have to start paying taxes in California to get the benefit of a new drug—before development, before clinical trials? Do you have to pay taxes to the state or even be a California resident? Medical tourism may benefit the state, but being the capital of social welfare probably will not.<br /> <br /> As more states consider implementing public funds for stem cell research, the benefit sharing issues are going to be critical for collecting and maintaining public and industry confidence. Maybe the question California made a mistake in postponing when it passed Proposition 71 was not <I>how</I>, but <I>whether</I> the state should force benefit sharing at all. State stem cell research funding programs still have much to offer in terms of economic advantages and future medical breakthroughs, even if the state does not directly share in IP revenues. States should attempt to quantify and communicate expected revenues. Because funding states cannot foresee research outcomes (both treatments and revenues), it’s not an accurate measure to ask taxpayers how much they would pay to eliminate spinal cord injuries, cancer, or one of many other suggested targets. However, some taxpayers are interested in taking a shot at these cures, and it’s possible that the total value of the research to taxpayers may be much greater than any state’s investment. <br /><br /><hr><span style="font-size:85%;"><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN1sym" HREF="#libkaFN1anc">1</A> California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin fund hES cell research. Meanwhile, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia only fund adult stem cell research. <I>See</I> National Conference of State Legislatures, <A HREF="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm"><I>Stem Cell Research</I></A>, Jan. 2008.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN2sym" HREF="#libkaFN2anc">2</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN3sym" HREF="#libkaFN3anc">3</A> <I>Id.</I> <br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN4sym" HREF="#libkaFN4anc">4</A> <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/pIIch18.html">35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212</A> (1980).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN5sym" HREF="#libkaFN5anc">5</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN6sym" HREF="#libkaFN6anc">6</A> Joe Mullin, <A HREF="http://iplawandbusiness.law.com/display.php/file=/texts/0608/stemcell"><I>Stem Cell Gold Rush</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">IP Law & Bus.</span>, June 2008.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN7sym" HREF="#libkaFN7anc">7</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN8sym" HREF="#libkaFN8anc">8</A> CIRM, <A HREF="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/"><I>About CIRM</I></A>, (last visited October 20, 2008). <br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN9sym" HREF="#libkaFN9anc">9</A> Legislative Analyst’s Office, <I><A HREF="http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/71_11_2004.htm">Proposition 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute</A>.</I>, July 2004.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN10sym" HREF="#libkaFN10anc">10</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN11sym" HREF="#libkaFN11anc">11</A> <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">Jesse Reynolds & Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics & Society</span>, <A HREF="http://genetics.live.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/200601report.pdf"><span style="font-varian: small-caps;">The California Stem Cell Program at One Year: A Progress Report</span></A> 7 (2006).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN12sym" HREF="#libkaFN12anc">12</A> Ralph Brave, <A HREF="http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=44314"><I>Stem-cell Wonderland</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">Sacramento News & Rev.</span>, Oct. 20, 2005 (“Cures for California” was the name of the Proposition 71 campaign); Legislative Analyst’s Office, <I>supra</I> note 7.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN13sym" HREF="#libkaFN13anc">13</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN14sym" HREF="#libkaFN14anc">14</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN15sym" HREF="#libkaFN15anc">15</A> State of California, <A HREF="http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_text_of_proposed_law.pdf"><I>Text of Proposed Laws: Proposition 71</I></A>, (last visited October 20, 2008).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN16sym" HREF="#libkaFN16anc">16</A> Lori P. Knowles, <A HREF="http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/ebrief/000440/pdfs/Knowles.pdf"><I>State-sponsored Human Stem Cell Research: Regulatory Approaches and Standard Setting</I></A>, 21 (2006).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN17sym" HREF="#libkaFN17anc">17</A> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/business/22cell.html"><I>Judge Rules Suits Challenging Stem Cell Agency Have No Merit</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">N.Y.Times</span>, Apr. 22, 2006.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN18sym" HREF="#libkaFN18anc">18</A> Christine Vestal, <A HREF="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=128323"><I>Stem Cell Wars Rage in State Capitols</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">Stateline.org</span>, July 20, 2006.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN19sym" HREF="#libkaFN19anc">19</A> Op-Ed, <A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-stemcell12dec12,0,750894.story"><I>Stem Cell Housecleaning</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">L.A. Times</span>, Dec. 12, 2007. <br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN20sym" HREF="#libkaFN20anc">20</A> <A HREF="http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1551-1600/sb_1565_bill_20080222_introduced.pdf">S.B. 1565</A>, 2007-08, Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2008).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN21sym" HREF="#libkaFN21anc">21</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN22sym" HREF="#libkaFN22anc">22</A> <A HREF="http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/09/29/daily12.html"><I>Governor Vetoes California Stem Cell Bill</I></A>, <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">Sacramento Bus. J.</span>, Sept. 29, 2008.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN23sym" HREF="#libkaFN23anc">23</A> Mullin, <I>supra</I> note 4.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN24sym" HREF="#libkaFN24anc">24</A> <A HREF="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/reg/default.asp">17 Cal. Code of Regs. § 100308</A> (2008).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN25sym" HREF="#libkaFN25anc">25</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN26sym" HREF="#libkaFN26anc">26</A> 17 Cal. Code of Regs. § 100408 (2008). <br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN27sym" HREF="#libkaFN27anc">27</A> 17 Cal. Code of Regs. § 100407 (2008).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN28sym" HREF="#libkaFN28anc">28</A> IP Task Force Subcommittee, <A HREF="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/meetings/2008/10-29-08.asp">Agenda for October 29, 2008</A>.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN29sym" HREF="#libkaFN29anc">29</A> Office of the Governor, <A HREF="http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/9918/"><I>Governor Celebrates California Innovation and Research at 2008 Biotechnology Industry Organization Conference</I></A>, June 18, 2008 (citing 3,000 new companies, $4.3 billion in venture capital—nearly half of what is invested nationwide, and $73 billion in estimated annual revenues).<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN30sym" HREF="#libkaFN30anc">30</A> Mullin, <I>supra</I> note 4.<br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN31sym" HREF="#libkaFN31anc">31</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="libkaFNsym" NAME="libkaFN32sym" HREF="#libkaFN32anc">32</A> <span style="font-varian: small-caps;">Reynolds & Darnovsky</span>, <I>supra</I> note 9, at 9 (suggesting that the Proposition 71 campaign was misleading).MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-47204154379379595332008-11-27T11:14:00.002-05:002008-11-27T11:16:08.747-05:00Be Thankful For Less Spam, But Probably Not For Long – Link roundup on activities of questionable legality online<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:mikeschu@umich.edu">Michael Schultz</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br />You (or your IT staff) may have been thankful to find that spam traffic has been a bit lighter in the last few weeks, after the recent <A HREF="http://www.switched.com/2008/11/12/major-spam-hub-shut-down/?icid=100214839x1212545188x1200854659">shutdown</A> of a major spam hub that, by some estimates, was responsible for as much as 75 percent of the world’s junk mail. You might have expected the company facilitating all of that spam – not to mention illegally gathered credit card information and child pornography – would have chosen to operate from the relative obscurity of an offshore hosting service. Instead, McColo Corporation set up shop in San Jose, California in a “<A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20080209180850/mccolo.com/about/">top-level modern [...] IT center</A>.” To be clear, McColo is merely the “virtual host” for those that are actually sending the spam; something akin to a landlord of an apartment building in which most, if not all, of the apartments are being used for illegal activity. <br /><br />In an interesting twist, it wasn’t U.S. authorities that shut down the hub – instead the companies that provided internet connection for McColo decided to cut ties. This leaves open the possibility of McColo finding another internet provider – or the individual sites being hosted by McColo to disperse, making them harder to track and shut down. In fact, only two weeks after the shutdown, spam levels are <A HREF="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/26/Spam_Spikes_Again_Weeks_After_McColo_Shutdown_1.html">reported to already be back to two-thirds of their previous levels</A>. <br /><br />Brian Krebs of the Washington Post, who is credited with the initial investigation and breaking the <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111200658_pf.html">story</A>, writes that “Multiple security researchers have <A HREF="http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/ozdok/?threat=ozdok">recently</A> <A HREF="http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2008/10/mccolo-hosting-srizbi-cc.html#more">published</A> <A HREF="http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?uid=745bcad4-9f9d-4a32-ba95-7cb7d5fc14f8">data</A> <A HREF="http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1484">naming</A> <A HREF="http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/warezov/">McColo</A> as the host for all of the top robot networks or "botnets," which are vast collections of hacked computers that are networked together to blast out spam or attack others online. These include SecureWorks, FireEye and ThreatExpert.” According to Mr. Krebs, “[what is] unclear is the extent to which McColo could be held legally responsible for the activities of the clients for whom it provides hosting services. There is no evidence that McColo has been charged with any crime, and these activities may not violate the law.” <br /><br />So what is the law (and what should it be?) in this murky, seedy area of the internet? Below is a roundup of various links that may help to address that question:<br /><br /><A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9926899-7.html">FBI wants widespread monitoring of 'illegal' Internet activity</A><br /><A HREF="http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20061220005180&newsLang=en">Illegal Internet Activity a Growing Concern for Enterprise Organizations</A><br /><A HREF="http://hutchinsonconsulting.biz/legal/illegalactivity.pdf">Using the Law to Address Illegal Activity on the Internet</A><br /><A HREF="http://www.allbusiness.com/arts-entertainment-recreation/1185183-1.html">Employer responsibility to report illegal activities established by Court</A><br /><A HREF="http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx">FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center</A>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-48862436870888845482008-11-23T11:25:00.005-05:002008-11-23T11:25:00.456-05:00Google Book Search Settlement - What Will Google Deliver?<span style="font-size: 85%;">by <a href="mailto:laurenms@umich.edu">Lauren Strandbergh</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</span><br /> <br /><div style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; float: right; width: 180px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg91IANVWAyyDKXe1HWMrLhpytxcJMNOHnyw_h4sEVO9BEkC63bSwz8jQL0IgglKQz6DMC0g93aqd83ri5ZnHA9CVmIwJsT-541g_YjbfgvRGa6Pyb3c203Oa9kXVJE3Su_zxRy2jNCMr8/s1600-h/strandbergh-booksearch.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg91IANVWAyyDKXe1HWMrLhpytxcJMNOHnyw_h4sEVO9BEkC63bSwz8jQL0IgglKQz6DMC0g93aqd83ri5ZnHA9CVmIwJsT-541g_YjbfgvRGa6Pyb3c203Oa9kXVJE3Su_zxRy2jNCMr8/s200/strandbergh-booksearch.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5271256908457558882" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/roberts87/2835247605/">The Search</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/roberts87/">Robert S.</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-SA 2.0</a> license.</span></div>On October 28, 2008, Google reached a settlement with The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) after two years of negotiations.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN1anc" HREF="#strandFN1sym"><SUP>1</SUP></A> The agreement would resolve the class-action lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and book authors against Google, in addition to another lawsuit brought by five publishing companies as representatives of the AAP’s membership.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN2anc" HREF="#strandFN2sym"><SUP>2</SUP></A> Although Judge John Sprizzo has given preliminary approval, the settlement is still subject to final court approval following a June hearing, which "will determine whether the agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate." <A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN3anc" HREF="#strandFN3sym"><SUP>3</SUP></A><br /><br />According to Google, the agreement would provide increased access to out-of-print books, additional ways to purchase copyrighted books online, institutional subscriptions, free access from public and university libraries in the United States, and compensation and improved control to authors and publishers.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN4anc" HREF="#strandFN4sym"><SUP>4</SUP></A> This last would be made possible by the Book Rights Registry, a new development that is one of the more important aspects of the settlement.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN5anc" HREF="#strandFN5sym"><SUP>5</SUP></A> <br /><br />Under the settlement agreement, Google would pay $125 million to be used to create the Book Rights Registry, cover legal fees, and resolve existing claims.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN6anc" HREF="#strandFN6sym"><SUP>6</SUP></A> The independent, non-profit Book Rights Registry would distribute “payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers” and “locate rightsholders, collect and maintain accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project.”<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN7anc" HREF="#strandFN7sym"><SUP>7</SUP></A> <br /> <br />The new Registry would be similar to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which monitors and compensates individuals in the music industry.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN8anc" HREF="#strandFN8sym"><SUP>8</SUP></A> As one blogger put it in a somewhat sarcastic post, Google and the Registry are bringing “the Dewey Decimal System into the digital age.”<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN9anc" HREF="#strandFN9sym"><SUP>9</SUP></A> The Registry will keep track of books and inserts, as well as the respective authors, publishers, and other rightsholders.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN10anc" HREF="#strandFN10sym"><SUP>10</SUP></A> <br /><br />The Registry will do much more than serve as an information depository, though; it will also be responsible for contracts and payments. The settlement provides for a board of directors with equal representation of the author sub-class and publisher sub-class.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN11anc" HREF="#strandFN11sym"><SUP>11</SUP></A> A majority of the directors, including at least one from each sub-class, is required for the Board to act.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN12anc" HREF="#strandFN12sym"><SUP>12</SUP></A> This will presumably help to protect both the authors’ and publishers’ rights in their dealings with Google, and possibly other providers somewhere down the line. <br /> <br />Google and the Registry will determine the subscription prices.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN13anc" HREF="#strandFN13sym"><SUP>13</SUP></A> This basically amounts to Google proposing prices, and the Registry board approving or denying, thus acting as a check on Google.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN14anc" HREF="#strandFN14sym"><SUP>14</SUP></A> The settlement claims that Google and the Registry will attempt to base subscription prices on two factors: “the realization of revenue at market rates for each Book and license on behalf of Rightsholders” and “the realization of broad access to the Books by the public, including institutions of higher education.”<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN15anc" HREF="#strandFN15sym"><SUP>15</SUP></A> These are worthy guidelines if followed. Ideally, the first goal (and the cost of corporate profit) will not make the second impossible. The legal databases provided by LexisNexis and Westlaw are examples of digital libraries that are unavailable to the masses due to high cost.<br /> <br />Rather than litigating the fair use question at issue in these lawsuits, Google settled for a large sum of money. This means that the legal standard is no better understood, and the price for using this material is high—$125 million in this case. Microsoft already bowed out of the competition for creating a searchable library database last spring.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN16anc" HREF="#strandFN16sym"><SUP>16</SUP></A> This could make it far more difficult for others interested in creating digital libraries or databases to acquire rights to the media, perhaps harming some of the smaller scale enterprises that have recently been appearing on library websites.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN17anc" HREF="#strandFN17sym"><SUP>17</SUP></A><br /> <br />What does all of this mean for the average Google user? Whether or not this settlement and the new Book Rights Registry will make a real positive difference for individuals and libraries across the country is somewhat uncertain. Search capabilities will definitely increase, which is Google’s main goal behind this expensive effort. But will people have access to content as they would at a library, or will the Google Books site simply become a mammoth bookstore, crowding out Amazon and other on-line retailers? The settlement only provides for public libraries to have one terminal where users may, one at a time, view out-of-print books and print them, for a per-page fee of course.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN18anc" HREF="#strandFN18sym"><SUP>18</SUP></A> This does not appear to be an exceptionally user friendly model. <br /> <br />Whether or not institutions will subscribe to this database and individuals purchase books will depend on multiple factors. Two of the most important may be price and ease of use. Even if an institution purchases a subscription or an individual buys a particular book, they are still restricted to printing or viewing the book on the website.<A CLASS="strandFNanc" NAME="strandFN19anc" HREF="#strandFN19sym"><SUP>19</SUP></A> This is rather limiting and may make sense only when discussing out-of-print materials. Hopefully Google will use some of the creativity they frequently display, and work with the Author’s Guild, and AAP to engineer a system that will be accessible to everyone.<br /><hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN1sym" HREF="#strandFN1anc">1</A></SUP> Press Release, <A HREF="http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20081027_booksearchagreement.html">Google, Authors, Publishers, and Google Reach Landmark Settlement</A> (Oct. 28, 2008).<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN2sym" HREF="#strandFN2anc">2</A></SUP> <I>Id</I>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN3sym" HREF="#strandFN3anc">3</A></SUP> Erica Sadun, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081119-google-copyright-deal-moves-forward.html"><i>Google copyright deal moves forward</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Ars Technica</span>, Nov. 19, 2008.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN4sym" HREF="#strandFN4anc">4</A></SUP> Press Release, <I>supra</I> note 1.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN5sym" HREF="#strandFN5anc">5</A></SUP> <I>Id</I>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN6sym" HREF="#strandFN6anc">6</A></SUP> <I>Id</I>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN7sym" HREF="#strandFN7anc">7</A></SUP> <I>Id</I>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN8sym" HREF="#strandFN8anc">8</A></SUP> Reyhan Harmanci, <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/29/BU2413PJR1.DTL&hw=google&sn=011&sc=525">Google, book trade groups settle lawsuits</A>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">S.F. Chron.</span>, Oct. 29, 2008. <br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN9sym" HREF="#strandFN9anc">9</A></SUP> Elie Mystal, <A HREF="http://abovethelaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=thank+god+for+good+lawyers">Thank God For Good Lawyers: Google Destroys Libraries, Not The Law</A>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Above The Law</span>, Oct. 29, 2008.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN10sym" HREF="#strandFN10anc">10</A></SUP> Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc, No. 05-CV-8136, at 65 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.28, 2008), (hereafter “Settlement Agreement”), available at <A HREF="http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/">http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/</A>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN11sym" HREF="#strandFN11anc">11</A></SUP> <I>Id.</I><br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN12sym" HREF="#strandFN12anc">12</A></SUP> <I>Id.</I><br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN13sym" HREF="#strandFN13anc">13</A></SUP> <I>Id</I>. at 42.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN14sym" HREF="#strandFN14anc">14</A></SUP> <I>Id.</I> at 44. The registry is allowed to propose adjustments to Google. <I>Id.</I> at 45. <br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN15sym" HREF="#strandFN15anc">15</A></SUP> <I>Id.</I> at 42.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN16sym" HREF="#strandFN16anc">16</A></SUP> Miguel Helft, <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24soft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"><I>Microsoft Will Shut Down Book Search Program</I></A>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">N.Y. Times</span>, May 24, 2008.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN17sym" HREF="#strandFN17anc">17</A></SUP> Many Michigan libraries are a part of the Michigan Library Consortium, provided through OverDrive digital media services, which allows card-holders to download eBooks and Audio books to personal computers for a limited amount of time. It is similar to a standard library in that there are limited “copies” of each book available at one time and a patron must wait on a list for the next available copy if all are “checked out.” <A HREF="http://ebooks.mlcnet.org/BAFC14AD-E1DD-4F3F-9ABA-F36461475597/10/230/en/Default.htm">Michigan Library Consortium Home Page</A>.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN18sym" HREF="#strandFN18anc">18</A></SUP> Settlement Agreement, <I>supra</I> note 10, at 60.<br /><SUP><A CLASS="strandFNsym" NAME="strandFN19sym" HREF="#strandFN19anc">19</A></SUP> <I>Id.</I> at 47-48.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-68268440544278846442008-11-21T17:06:00.006-05:002008-11-21T17:18:02.898-05:00Dilemmas in Electronic Voting: An Example from the Garden State<span style="font-size: 85%;">by <a href="mailto:rwalden@umich.edu">Ryan Walden</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 220px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVdp6WmwWrxkTfAymJoZb_6jb-oWbpvsC0eToReHoTesz1ekwsPkgp_vvpBijqbGFv47HfZt88qwE3_7IX-kmJAR2-dehSbn-y7YB7CYAiTOBdl4n4PPlzq81ts_sAjuH4eyjRCEp3_0/s1600-h/walden-votedornot.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeVdp6WmwWrxkTfAymJoZb_6jb-oWbpvsC0eToReHoTesz1ekwsPkgp_vvpBijqbGFv47HfZt88qwE3_7IX-kmJAR2-dehSbn-y7YB7CYAiTOBdl4n4PPlzq81ts_sAjuH4eyjRCEp3_0/s200/walden-votedornot.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5271237008420150178" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kchrist/1229306/">I Voted?</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/kchrist/">Kenn Wilson</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Today’s voters are more likely than ever to read online blogs for political news and views, use candidate websites to examine their stances on the issues, and then make donations to their favored candidates online. Today’s voters are also more likely to cast their vote using an electronic voting machine, but not all consider that a welcome change. Just ask the plaintiffs in a New Jersey case challenging the use of electronic voting machines.<br /> <br /> Last month, Andrew Appel, a computer science professor at Princeton, released a report of findings on the security of the Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines (<A HREF="http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/">executive summary</A> | <A HREF="http://coblitz.codeen.org/citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/advantage-insecurities-redacted.pdf">pdf report</A>). This report was submitted to the New Jersey Superior Court in support of the plaintiffs in <I>Gusciora v. Corzine</I>, a lawsuit alleging that the use of the AVC Advantage voting machines violates the state constitution’s guarantee to count every vote due to the possibility of fraud. The report finds that the machines, used in 18 of New Jersey’s 21 counties, can be hacked in as little as seven minutes by installing a new program into the computer to change vote totals. Appel demonstrates how the machines can be hacked in <A HREF="http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/video.html">this (90 minute) video</A>. <br /> <br /> To combat possible fraud, Appel recommends voter verified paper trails, which would entail “an individual paper record of each vote cast, seen and verified by the voter at the time the vote is cast, collected in a ballot box so that it can be recounted by hand if necessary.” Voter verified paper trails is not a new idea – <A HREF="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811">proposed legislation</A> from Congressman Rush Holt (also of New Jersey) would mandate voter verified paper trails in federal elections. Even with voter verified paper trails, there must be a way to properly audit paper records to ensure no misconduct has occurred. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law has released a <A HREF="http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39288.pdf">report (pdf file)</A> with recommendations for such audit mechanisms.<br /> <br /> For their part, Sequoia Voting Systems, which makes the AVC Advantage voting machines, has rebutted the Appel report with a report of its own (<A HREF="http://www.sequoiavote.com/documents/SVS_Response_to_Appel_report_NJ.pdf">pdf report</A> | <A HREF="http://www.sequoiavote.com/press.php?ID=74">press release</A>). Sequoia argues that the study was not conducted under real world settings, where detection of tampering is very likely. Sequoia also argues that the AVC Advantage machines were evaluated under “inappropriate standards” - noting that the Appel report’s assertion that the machines “must be correct in all circumstances” is an impossible standard to meet for any sort of voting system. <br /> <br /> Ultimately, the arguments on both sides prompt the question: If we can’t have 100% accuracy, what level of inaccuracy is permissible? Sequoia is certainly right that no system will be correct in all circumstances, but if the Appel report is correct with regards to the sheer ease of changing votes, then that is not a sufficient rebuttal. Technology makes voting and counting votes easier, but it may also make voter fraud easier. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? A <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/us/politics/03voting.html?pagewanted=1&hp">New York Times article</A> notes that two-thirds of voters in the recent election were anticipated to vote by paper, with some states, including Florida, having switched back from electronic voting machines. <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102904105_pf.html">Virginia and Maryland</A> will switch back to paper ballots for the 2010 election. As for New Jersey? In light of this controversy, at least <A HREF="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9412">one Garden State political blogger</A> suggests a decidedly un-21st century method of voting: through the U.S. Mail with an absentee ballot.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-90357678218593472632008-11-15T23:48:00.004-05:002008-11-16T00:11:44.403-05:00Terminating Early Termination Fees<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:bnsavage@umich.edu">Brian Savage</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br />Two former Qwest customers have filed a putative class action lawsuit against Qwest <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122418994074842135.html">seeking to end termination</A> fees for broadband Internet subscribers. This is one of the first challenges to broadband service termination fees. Both former customers were charged 200 dollars when they canceled their broadband service. One customer, Rory Durkin, intended to cancel service but decided to continue paying for monthly broadband service when he learned of the termination fee - even though he did not have a working computer.<br /><br />The other customer, Robin Vernon, allegedly called to cancel service, was told on the phone by a Qwest customer service representative that there was no fee to cancel, but later received a bill for a 200 dollar early termination fee (ETF). When Vernon demanded to see a contract, Qwest informed her that the contract was made orally on the telephone by Mrs. Vernon's husband and that neither a written copy of a contract nor a recording of the telephone conversation was available. Shortly thereafter, she started receiving calls from a collection agency. <br /><br />Qwest markets its broadband services as requiring a <A HREF="http://www.qwest.com/">two-year commitment</A>, but customers do not agree to this in a contract. Customers typically order the broadband service over the telephone. After becoming a subscriber, Qwest mails a "Subscriber Agreement" to the new customer that is not signed by Qwest or the customer. The <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/qwestcomplaint.pdf">Subscriber Agreement</A> states "IF YOU ORDER SERVICE WITH A TERM COMMITMENT, YOU AGREE TO MAINTAIN THAT SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE TERM COMMITMENT PERIOD." The Subscriber Agreement, however, does not mention an ETF and the only term of service mentioned is a month-to-month commitment. <br /><br />The <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/qwestcomplaint.pdf">complaint</A> alleges that the ETF is an unlawful penalty under common law contract principles because "(a) it is wholly disproportionate to the harm, if any, that early cancellation may cause Qwest; (b) it is not based on a bona fide reasonable estimate of the damages, if any, that Qwest incurs from an early cancellation; and (c) the actual damage, if any, Qwest may suffer as a result of early termination is not difficult to ascertain." The complaint also asserts an unjust enrichment claim and other state law claims. <br /><br />So, what is the likelihood of success in this action and what could this mean for you as a broadband subscriber? Other recent challenges to termination fees in a cellular phone context suggest that if this action against Qwest is successful, customers will likely be able to choose monthly plans without ETFs. <br /><br />Verizon Wireless agreed to a 21 million dollar <A HREF="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325287,00.asp">settlement</A> in a California class action suit regarding ETFs and now offers plans with <A HREF="http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=planFirst&action=viewPlanList&sortOption=priceSort&typeId=1&subTypeId=1&catId=323">month-to-month</A> commitments. Customers can still choose to pay a lower price for the phone and enter into a long-term contract, or the customer can choose to pay full price for the phone without a long-term contract and its accompanying ETF. A California judge also ordered Sprint Communications to <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10004049-94.html">pay back 18 million</A> to customers who had paid ETFs. Many phone companies (<A HREF="http://nextelonline.nextel.com/NASApp/onlinestore/en/Action/DisplayPlans?filterString=Individual_Plans_Filter&id12=UHP_PlansTab_Link_IndividualPlans">Sprint</A>, <A HREF="http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/individual-cell-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=314657">AT&T</A>) are now adjusting their plans by either offering prorated termination fees, so that customers pay less if they cancel later in their agreement, or offering monthly plans like Verizon. <br /><br />The plaintiffs' successes in the cell phone cases suggests that the broadband case will be successful as well. Cell phone carriers, because they offer cheaper handsets when customers enter into a long-term contract, can argue that the ETF is appropriate since customers keep their phones after cancelling service. The argument for overturning broadband termination fees is arguably stronger because former broadband customers do not keep anything from the company. The end of broadband termination fees, therefore, may be near. <br /><br />Allowing customers to cancel their service at any time without an ETF and to switch providers may allow for smaller companies with competitively priced plans to more easily build a customer base and compete with the larger companies. This could result in lower prices for everyone.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-87629737274754935192008-11-10T09:45:00.005-05:002008-11-10T09:45:00.734-05:00The PRO-IP Act<span style="font-size: 85%;">by <a href="mailto:hlance@umich.edu">Holly Lance</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</span><br /><br />It may be time to quit that nasty BitTorrent habit. On October 13th, President Bush signed into law the <A HREF="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show">PRO-IP Act</A> (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008), which greatly increases the power of the federal government to protect copyright and trademark owners. <br />Some of the big changes coming down the pipe:<br /><ol><li>A court can take away your computer if you download illegally - <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110LdsLqw:e1163:">§102</A> of the Act specifies that during a civil action, a Court may order the impoundment of all copyrighted material and the means by which the material can be reproduced, as well as all documentation regarding the creation, sale, or receipt of these materials. <br /><li>Counterfeiters could pay up to $2 million in damages - <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110LdsLqw:e1163:">§103</A> raises the range of statutory damages available considerably, with the new maximum fine being $2 million, doubling the current $1 million max. <br /><li>Harsher criminal penalties for infringement - <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110LdsLqw:e1163:">§205</A> punishes infringers with jail time (up to life) if someone is seriously injured or dies as a result of the trafficking of counterfeit goods or services. <br /><li>There will be an “IP Czar” - <A HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110LdsLqw:e2333:">§301</A> creates the position of an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), who will be in charge of an interagency intellectual property enforcement committee and will help facilitate coordination between agencies. <br /></ol><br />The law originated in the House last December (introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)), and passed in the House by a very large margin in May. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and passed in the Senate unanimously and the House by a large margin (90.3% by both Democrats and Republicans). While many criticize the PRO-IP Act as harsh, the version that Bush signed has actually been toned down considerably, as previous proposals included <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-statutory-damages-not-high-enough.html">much higher statutory damages</A>, <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829826-38.html">creation of a new federal agency</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.itworld.com/government/55444/ip-piracy-bill-passes-through-us-congress">giving authority to the DOJ to sue on behalf of copyright holders</A>.<br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXCKHcbh1lgsT_RZzMG7k-W8Izhqi6zapz6vvxr5ifaSmTir393jnCypC79_Yq-w01ZmKHWCFuQuMpgjHfDAH6z7ReQGU7jFkRinezUYuvhsjI6L78p0NYXghpUt5a5c1qcU4heoqlnOg/s1600-h/lance-pirate.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXCKHcbh1lgsT_RZzMG7k-W8Izhqi6zapz6vvxr5ifaSmTir393jnCypC79_Yq-w01ZmKHWCFuQuMpgjHfDAH6z7ReQGU7jFkRinezUYuvhsjI6L78p0NYXghpUt5a5c1qcU4heoqlnOg/s320/lance-pirate.jpg" border="0" alt="Young 1920's-era woman dressed as a pirate"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5266533584920301170" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mildlydiverting/9028033/">Pirate Mona</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/mildlydiverting/">Kim P</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-SA 2.0</a> license.</span></div>As expected, the <A HREF="http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=&news_year_filter=&resultpage=&id=2FB888F3-E167-AE4E-98A5-122555B793DF">RIAA</A> and <A HREF="http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/bipartisan%20passage%20of%20pro-ip%20act.pdf">MPAA</A> are quite pleased with the new law. The National Association of Manufacturers is happy too, and President John Engler calls the PRO-IP Act “<A HREF="http://www.nam.org/NewsFromtheNAM/PRO-IPLawWillProtect.aspx">a shining example of a bicameral, bipartisan effort to advance legislation to protect our consumers, jobs and businesses from intellectual-property piracy and counterfeiting</A>.” Copyright infringement and counterfeiting are serious problems, and this Act represents a major step by the government in protecting IP owners. The RIAA and MPAA have been particularly concerned about P2P networks for several years, and if this Act is strongly enforced, it will give owners more tools for suing infringers and provide more federal oversight. In a tough economy like this, the Act can serve to bolster U.S. businesses, which lose <A HREF="http://www.thetruecosts.org/portal/truecosts/getthefacts/jobs.htm">$200-$250 billion and 750,000 jobs annually</A> due to infringement and counterfeiting (<A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars">or maybe not</A>). <br /><br />Not everyone is happy about the PRO-IP Act. Public interest groups like the <A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation</A> and <A HREF="http://www.publicknowledge.org/">Public Knowledge</A> criticize that the Act “<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12/pro-ip-act-increase-infringement-penalties-and-drastically-expand-government-enfor">amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users</A>” and “<A HREF="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1766">adds more imbalance to a copyright law that favors large media companies</A>.” These groups are worried that the Act is unnecessary, will curtail legitimate fair use, and impose fines and seizures that are much too severe. Even the <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003360.html">DOJ expressed its concern</A> about the creation of an “IP Czar” and felt that such an enforcer would undermine the DOJ's independence. <br /><br />It is hard to say at this point what will become of the PRO-IP Act. Obviously a lot will depend on who is to become the first “IP Czar”, which will likely be decided by the next president. Obama’s campaign plan already included the creation of a “Chief Technology Officer”. This <A HREF="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2008/db20081019_258155.htm">Business Week article</A> speculates that possible candidates for the position include Vint Cerf, Steve Ballmer, Jeffrey Bezos, Ed Felten, while the <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446734650049199.html">Wall Street Journal</A> shows that some believe Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt wants the job. One factor that may influence the decision is Obama’s recent battle against major copyright holder NBC, which <A HREF="http://washingtonindependent.com/9668/nbc-kills-obama-youtube-hit">took down a popular YouTube video mocking a McCain victory</A>. His <A HREF="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/">official stance</A> is that there is a “need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment, while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.” John McCain also seems to have a personal sympathy for fair use of copyright materials, as evidenced by this <A HREF="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6560063/McCain-Campaign-Letter-To-YouTube-on-Fair-Use">letter from his campaign to YouTube</A>, which bemoans the “overreaching copyright claims” that have “silenc[ed] political speech” and wants to <A HREF="http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/copyright-politics-and-mccains-request-special-treatment">give campaigns special treatment</A>. Ironically, the letter is dated October 13, 2008, the same day that Bush signed the Act. McCain also openly “<A HREF="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/CBCD3A48-4B0E-4864-8BE1-D04561C132EA.htm">supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off.</A>” While it seems like Obama may be more friendly to reform, keep in mind that it was Democrats who initiated the bills in both the House and the Senate. Obama will likely present a more “fair use”-friendly “IP Czar”, but the real question may be if he or she can get past the Senate.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-9033943099565543662008-11-07T10:30:00.003-05:002008-11-09T00:36:04.389-05:00Reproducing the Presidential Debates: Should Fair Use Govern?<span style="font-size: 85%;">by <a href="mailto:dmesh@umich.edu">Dororthy Eshelman</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</span><br /><br /><h2>Introduction</h2><br />Millions of viewers have tuned in to watch the presidential and vice-presidential candidates debate pressing issues before heading to the polls earlier this week.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN1anc" HREF="#linFN1sym"><SUP>1</SUP></A> A growing number of Americans, however, get their political information from online sources and search YouTube, political blogs and other non-traditional sources for debate coverage. In this most recent election, but even more so in those to come, the issue of who has what rights to use, remix, and distribute that content has been and will be an essential concern of participatory democracy. and upcoming elections. <br /><br />Some networks have sought to encourage political participation and voter awareness by making their debate footage freely available to the public despite potential copyright violations.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN2anc" HREF="#linFN2sym"><SUP>2</SUP></A> But not all networks chose to make their debate footage available for widespread dissemination. Fox News was heavily criticized when it sent cease and desist notices to candidates using debate clips from the Fox-sponsored Republican primary events.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN3anc" HREF="#linFN3sym"><SUP>3</SUP></A> Senator McCain, in particular, faced the brunt of Fox’s wrath when he aired a television ad entitled “Tied Up” that was approximately 30 seconds in length, most of which came from a Fox debate, as evidenced by the Fox logo clearly visible in the lower corner of the screen.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN4anc" HREF="#linFN4sym"><SUP>4</SUP></A> Although Fox News claimed exclusive rights to the footage, Senator McCain argued that his use of the clip was within his fair use rights to his own statements during the debate.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN5anc" HREF="#linFN5sym"><SUP>5</SUP></A> Since the issue was not litigated, but still is of primary importance for later debates, this post will discuss whether the “fair use” exception can be invoked to justify using both small and substantial portions of the debate in later reproductions.<br /><br /><h2>Is Reproducing Copyrighted Debate Footage a "Fair Use"?</h2><br />When confronted with legal action, Senator McCain argued that his use of the 30 second clip of Fox News footage constituted a fair use of copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C. §107. This section of the Copyright Act details the fair use limitations on exclusive copyrights, as determined by an analysis of four factors <br /><blockquote>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN6anc" HREF="#linFN6sym"><SUP>6</SUP></A></blockquote><br />The fair use exception represents a balance between the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and the public’s interest in the wide availability of information that affects “areas of universal concern.”<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN7anc" HREF="#linFN7sym"><SUP>7</SUP></A><br /><br />Where, as here, the “purpose and character of the use” is primarily political in nature, courts are inclined to classify it as a fair use. Important first amendment implications cannot guarantee a fair use defense, but “when an act of copying occurs in the course of a political, social or moral debate, the public interest in free expression is one factor favoring a finding of fair use.”<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN8anc" HREF="#linFN8sym"><SUP>8</SUP></A> Likewise, because the original work is political and made for the benefit of the public, the second prong also counsels in favor of fair use.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN9anc" HREF="#linFN9sym"><SUP>9</SUP></A></P><br /><br />Although the contested McCain advertisement used just a small portion of the Fox debate footage and so it would likely have no problems with the third and fourth prongs of the fair use guidelines, individuals that post more substantial portions of a debate may run afoul of those factors, as well. When the 11th Circuit evaluated whether the fair use defense allowed the duplication of entire news stories (albeit for commercial sale), the court concluded that the substantiality of the copied segment and the commercial purpose of the copy nullified the defense even though the news station did not “actively market copies of the news programs” for its own profit.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN10anc" HREF="#linFN10sym"><SUP>10</SUP></A> Posting substantial portions of the copyrighted debates may be problematic if based only upon the fair use exception to the exclusive rights of the broadcasting networks.<br /><br /><h2>The Public Domain as an Alternative to Fair Use</h2>Because of the legal uncertainty over whether fair use protects candidates and the public when posting debate footage, a number of online activists across the political spectrum (including Professor Lessig of Stanford Law, Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia) are calling for networks to release their footage to the public domain.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN11anc" HREF="#linFN11sym"><SUP>11</SUP></A> According to this bi-partisan group, the presidential debates are held for the benefit of the public, and so “the right to speak about the debates ought to be ‘owned’ by the public.”<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN12anc" HREF="#linFN12sym"><SUP>12</SUP></A> Since the candidates themselves largely control the terms under which they debate, Professor Lessig believes that they should take a more direct stand on the issue and insist that the networks release the debate footage.<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN13anc" HREF="#linFN13sym"><SUP>13</SUP></A> Although networks certainly have an interest in maintaining their copyrights to political debates, perhaps Professor Lessig is correct in his observation that “[c]opyright, in my view, is essential and important, in some places. This isn't one."<A CLASS="linFNanc" NAME="linFN14anc" HREF="#linFN14sym"><SUP>14</SUP></A><br /><hr><br /><span style="font-size: 85%"><br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN1sym" HREF="#linFN1anc">1</A> Steve Gorman, <A HREF="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4928VT20081003"><I> Palin-Biden Debate Sets TV Ratings Record</I></A>, <SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reuters</SPAN>, Oct. 3, 2008.<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN2sym" HREF="#linFN2anc">2</A> <I>See <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20114724/">Detailed Usage Guidelines</A>, </I><SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">msnbc.com</SPAN>. (“After the live debate has concluded, non-NBC media and individuals, including blogs and Internet media, may make unlimited use of the debate and excerpts, with appropriate credit to MSNBC, for the purpose of analyzing, reporting on, or commenting on the debate.”). <I>See also</I> <I><A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/cnn-presidential -debate-footage.html">CNN: No restrictions on presidential debate footage</A>, </I><SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">cnn.com</SPAN>, May 5, 2007.<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN3sym" HREF="#linFN3anc">3</A> Jon Stokes, <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071101-fox-news-faces-wrath-right- left-over-debate-footage-stance.html"><I>Fox News Faces Wrath from Right and Left over Debate Footage Stance</I></A>, arstechnica.com, Nov. 1, 2007.<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN4sym" HREF="#linFN4anc">4</A> <I><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTRuG9QwzM">Tied Up</A> </I>(John McCain 2008, 2007).<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN5sym" HREF="#linFN5anc">5</A> Jim Rutenberg, <A HREF="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/fox-orders-halt-to-mccain-ad /"><I>Fox Orders Halt to McCain Ad</I></A>, <SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">The New York Times Politics Blog</SPAN> (Caucus) (Oct. 25, 2007).<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN6sym" HREF="#linFN6anc">6</A> <A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html">17 U.S.C. § 107</A> (2000).<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN7sym" HREF="#linFN7anc">7</A> Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1068 (2d Cir. 1977).<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN8sym" HREF="#linFN8anc">8</A> Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 1526, 1536 (C.D. Cal. 1985)<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN9sym" HREF="#linFN9anc"><SUP>9</SUP></A> Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957, 961 (D.N.H. 1978)<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN10sym" HREF="#linFN10anc">10</A> Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 744 F.2d 1490, 1496 (11th Cir. 1984).<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN11sym" HREF="#linFN11anc">11</A> Julian Sanchez, <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080926-bipartisan-coalition-debate- footage-must-be-public-domain.html"><I>Bipartisan Coalition: Debate Footage Must be Public Domain</I></A>, <SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">arstechnica.com</SPAN>, Sept. 26, 2008.<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN12sym" HREF="#linFN12anc">12</A> <A HREF="http://lessig.org/blog/080923-opendebate.pdf">Letter from Open Debate Coalition to Senator McCain and Senator Obama</A>.<br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN13sym" HREF="#linFN13anc">13</A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A CLASS="linFNsym" NAME="linFN14sym" HREF="#linFN14anc">14</A> Andrew Malcom, <A HREF="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/debates-mccain.html"><I >Diverse Web Coalition asks McCain, Obama to Alter Debates</I></A>, <SPAN style="font-variant:small-caps;">Los Angeles Times Blogs (Top of the Ticket)</SPAN>, Sept. 25, 2008.</spanMTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-50853579967742197582008-11-05T11:30:00.007-05:002008-11-09T01:10:45.223-05:00Palin Email Hack - Time to Update and Expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:shake@umich.edu">Sherri Nazarian</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div align="justify"><i>Editor: This post is part of a short <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/">MTTLR Blog</a> series on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a> - <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/2008/11/taking-down-bully-but-taking-computer.html">Part one</a> argues that the CFAA should not be expanded to address the problem of online bullying. <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/2008/11/reproducing-presidential-debates-should.html">Part two</a> (this post) looks to the Sarah Palin email hacking case to call for a review and possible expansion of the CFAA's provisions.</i></div><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilzoaZFtNKcylX5MpZoGQHnNT8SOeySfxNqhuOC249qG4NPwMon5i6B4-6_2MGmg-Tva7vhwT5SZi9yW35kkcDEC1xtl2Gs2gKnhjeWncCMw4tocv4d8dQwap02yD3ICLc8UVfQvMpf0Q/s1600-h/nazarian-pic.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 133px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilzoaZFtNKcylX5MpZoGQHnNT8SOeySfxNqhuOC249qG4NPwMon5i6B4-6_2MGmg-Tva7vhwT5SZi9yW35kkcDEC1xtl2Gs2gKnhjeWncCMw4tocv4d8dQwap02yD3ICLc8UVfQvMpf0Q/s200/nazarian-pic.jpg" border="0" alt="padlock and latch" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265014545091985026" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/2294144289/">Security</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/carbonnyc/">David Goehring</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en">BY 2.0</a> license.</span></div>It has been over two decades since David Lightman, a scrawny Seattle high school boy, stole our hearts when he almost started World War III by hacking into the North American Aerospace Defense computer system in the 1983 movie <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames"><I>Wargames</I></A>. David Kernell, a modern day hacker, who allegedly broke into Sarah Palin’s personal Yahoo e-mail account certainly generated the same amount of attention, but he may not have elicited the same emotions.<br /><br />The hacker impersonated Palin and used <A HREF="http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007773.html">three pieces of readily available personal information</A> in order to <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26781334/">change the account’s password and get access</A> to her e-mails. Palin’s e-mail contents, including some personal family pictures, <A HREF="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/VP_contender_Sarah_Palin_hacked">went online overnight</A> and in the process raised not only questions about internet security and personal privacy on the web, but also about whether Palin was <A HREF="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/palin-email-privilege/">deliberately attempting to hide public records</A> by using a personal e-mail account to conduct state business.<br /><br />This high-profile incident suggests it may be time to revisit the available legal tools to prosecute cyber crimes. The primary statute used to incriminate hackers is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)—<A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-notes.html">originally enacted in 1984</A>. The statute makes it illegal for a person to <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html">“intentionally access[] a computer without authorization or exceed[] authorized access and thereby obtain[] … information from any protected computer ….”</A> However, the statute does not make it easy for a prosecutor to charge Palin’s hacker with a felony, unless other conditions are met. Former Justice Department computer crime Prosecutor Mark Rasch anticipates that the hacker could be charged with as little as a misdemeanor and face <A HREF="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/palin-hack-migh.html">“little, if any, jail time.”</A> The statute calls for a felony charge if, <I>inter alia</I>, the value of the information the hacker obtains exceeds $5000, or if the hacking was <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html">“committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”</A> It is not clear that Palin’s hacker falls under any of these categories.<br /><br /><A HREF="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115099">According to computer experts</A>, Palin’s hacker used a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server">domestic proxy server</A> in order to transmit the images to websites, which led to his arrest. One of the bigger problems stemming from advances in internet technology is the difficulty in tracking down hackers who leave little or no trace behind. One such dilemma results when a hacker cleverly uses a proxy server located in a foreign country, where potentially the United States has no jurisdiction (or means via a treaty) to subpoena the log entry. The need for more domestic and international protection remains a salient need of our society.<br /><br />Even though Palin’s e-mail hacking incident is no inauguration of World War III, it is a wake up call to officials—who hopefully have checked their e-mail security by now—and legislators in charge of amending the laws. Today’s fast-paced technological society and the borderless world of the internet make us aware of the need for more protection against cyber criminals through broader statutes with provisions that cover not just hackers, but facilitators as well. The possibility of cyber crimes pushing countries into ratifying treaties like the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_cybercrime"><I>Convention on Cybercrime</I></A>, is, to say the least, a rational expectation.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-61946479146719915682008-11-04T14:51:00.011-05:002008-11-09T01:10:02.588-05:00Taking Down a Bully, But Taking the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Too Far?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:teresali@umich.edu">Teresa Lin</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div align="justify"><i>Editor: This post is part of a short <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/">MTTLR Blog</a> series on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a> - <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/2008/11/taking-down-bully-but-taking-computer.html">Part one</a> (this post) argues that the CFAA should not be expanded to address the problem of online bullying. <a href="http://blog.mttlr.org/2008/11/reproducing-presidential-debates-should.html">Part two</a> looks to the Sarah Palin email hacking case to call for a review and possible expansion of the CFAA's provisions.</i></div><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: right; width: 200px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY7UrPbTakvHGPgsxSy_ZLzT1p8JcrdOJ4Gke4WxCQlZmULButsNgMzWv0dfemxX3k-CvGJiOehgCaV2YD3XvvLCt6rKhUAt2jg8ylBqWwbkLxj6nUSkMxpAwj2297Bsoaa963MMEMk-o/s1600-h/Linpic.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY7UrPbTakvHGPgsxSy_ZLzT1p8JcrdOJ4Gke4WxCQlZmULButsNgMzWv0dfemxX3k-CvGJiOehgCaV2YD3XvvLCt6rKhUAt2jg8ylBqWwbkLxj6nUSkMxpAwj2297Bsoaa963MMEMk-o/s200/Linpic.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264900328867562418" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/uber-tuber/357803229/">Instant Messaging</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/uber-tuber/">Eric Bartholomew</a>. Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en">BY 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Bullies. They’re an unattractive staple of childhood. Most of us have either been one, encountered one, or observed one in action. But, alas, gone are the good old days of schoolyard bullies, where our homes were still places of refuge from schoolyard threats and teases. A new era of bullying has arrived – <a href="http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST06-005.html">cyberbullying</a>. <br /><br />If you’re reading this blog, then you might have already heard of the MySpace suicide case often used in <a href="http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/">awareness campaigns against cyberbullying</a>. For those that haven’t, here’s a quick recap:<br /><br />In November of 2007, Lori Drew was accused of helping her minor daughter create a fake MySpace account to lure, ridicule, and taunt her daughter’s ex-friend and neighbor, Megan Meier. Megan, at age 13, committed suicide as a result of the online bullying. While Missouri prosecutors were unable to find anything in the books to charge Lori Drew for criminal wrongdoing relating to Megan’s death, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles did not. This May, Drew was <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Drew.pdf">indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles for conspiracy to commit a federal crime</a> under the <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+608+11++%2818%20U.S.C.%201030">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030</a>. While the trial was scheduled to begin on October 7th, it has not proceeded, and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/24/myspace-suicide-trial-delayed-as-judge-struggles-with-legal-issues/">Drew’s defense attorney believes that the trial might be pushed further into December.</a><br /><br />For a more thorough account of the story, see <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_collins">this New Yorker article</a>, or follow the case on the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/?s=megan+meier&x=7&y=9">Wall Street Journal Law Blog</a>. <br /><br />The question now is whether <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/web/ocelibra.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/6f100eec1a34c796882572ab006d71cc?OpenDocument">District Court Judge Wu</a> should dismiss Drew’s indictments under the CFAA. And if so, what then for the morally reprehensible behavior of Lori Drew, an adult who instigated and heightened a game of child’s play that lead to a young girl’s suicide?<br /><br />Let’s begin by examining the textual problems with charging Drew under § 1030(a)(2)(c). This subsection of the statute makes it a federal crime for anyone to <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030NEW.htm">intentionally access a computer without, or in excess of, authorization to obtain information from a protected computer, if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication.</a> The Congressional intent of this statute was <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ccmanual/01ccma.html#C.6">not to give federal jurisdiction over all circumstances in which someone unlawfully obtains information via a computer or the internet</a>. Rather, subsection 1030(a)(2)(C) was amended in 1996 with the intent to use the CFAA to <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/s982.htm#IV">“protect against the interstate or foreign theft of information by computer.”</a> The purpose of this subsection is clear: CFAA is meant to punish those who ‘steal’ information (whether tangible or intangible) through computers. What interstate theft was involved in the MySpace suicide? Even if we’re wildly assuming that juicy teen gossip can be considered an intangible good that the Drews ‘stole’ from Megan, where is the interstate connection? All the parties involved in this case resided in Missouri during the entire episode. The only interstate medium remotely applicable is MySpace. <a href="http://www.la.bbb.org/BusinessReport.aspx?CompanyID=13199786">MySpace and its servers are in Beverly Hills, California, a subsidiary of Fox Interactive Media</a>. But the communications exchanged were still between people within Missouri.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-megan-meier-myspace-080515-ht,0,1888103.story">Furthermore, the statute has been historically applied to mostly internet hacking cases</a>; if the prosecution is allowed to continue under CFAA, it’s a daunting expansion of the federal government’s jurisdiction into unchartered and unintended territories. When Drew and her daughter registered the MySpace account under a fake identity, Drew agreed to the website’s <a href="http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.terms">terms of service (TOS)</a>. (MySpace updated their TOS in February 2008; this linked version may be different from the one Drew and her daughter agreed to in 2007). The TOS required Drew to register the account based on truthful and accurate information, to refrain from promoting false or misleading information, and to refrain from using MySpace to harass, abuse, or harm other people. The prosecution claimed that Drew and her daughter conspired to violate MySpace’s TOS when they set up their hoax account based on a fraudulent identify to use it for tortious actions against Megan Meier. Thus, according to the indictment, they violated provisions of the CFAA by <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2008/063.html">intentionally accessing a computer without and in excess of authorization to obtain information from Megan over the internet</a>. <br /><br />Lawmakers and lawyers alike may feel their hair rise to hear the CFAA applied so broadly. What would it mean for users for the federal government to be able to broadly apply the CFAA to all users who register accounts under false information? For security purposes, I purposely register all my accounts under different date of births so that my personal information is not readily available on the web. Of course, the government won’t prosecute everyone that commits fraudulent registrations, right? But if not, how does the government decide who should be prosecuted, and will they be allowed to exercise such discriminatory selection? Allowing the prosecution to continue under the CFAA statute clearly raises issues related to social networking generally. It might not hurt to start reviewing some of the TOS you may have agreed to already, such as for <a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/tos">Twitter</a>, <a href="http://www.habbo.com/papers/termsAndConditions">Habbo</a>, <a href="http://www.friendster.com/info/tos.php">Friendster</a>, or <a href="http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en">Orkut</a>. <br /><br />Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best in his dissent in <i>Northern Securities Co. v. United States</i>: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0193_0197_ZD1.html">hard cases make bad law</a>. What happened to Megan was a hard case – a life prematurely thrown away due to an immature prank by an adult. This awful tragedy draws on our innate social emotions to want to connect a law that can severely punish Lori Drew for her actions. But, as loud as society is screaming for justice, expanding the CFAA to such an extent is clearly bad law.<br /><br /><hr><br /><br />For those unsatisfied with the conclusions drawn above, here’s a tidbit to console if Drew avoids legal prosecution. While the court battles the legal dilemma of how to prosecute Lori Drew, if at all, the blogging community has been alive with their own sort of virtual vigilante justice. In mid November of 2007, when the story exploded over national television, video clips from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/17/tuchman.mo.myspace.suicide.cnn?iref=videosearch">CNN</a> and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?CMP=KNC-YahooPI">Fox News</a>, and even the <a href="http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/11/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt">original Suburban Journals article</a> that first ran the story, all refrained from revealing the identify of Lori Drew to the public out of concern for her minor daughter. Repulsed by Drew’s action, the internet community was not so kind. By November 17, 2007, bloggers broadcast and posted <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice">Lori Drew’s name</a>, <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html">police report</a>, <a href="http://pysih.com/2007/11/19/lori-drew/">personal address, business information, phone number, and her husband’s employment information</a>. Drew, who owned an advertising business, was <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/12/myspace_moms_lawyer_checks_in.html">rumored to have closed down her business and relocated</a> due to her notoriety. Drew is sure to be haunted by her actions for a very long time. But is this form of virtual vigilante justice satisfying? Is it commendable or condemnable? The lines between the vigilante response and the original abuses grow increasingly unclear.<br /><br />Though virtual vigilantism is a debatable sort of justice, the community at large has been taking a more definite form of justice – legislation. Numbers of states have either proposed or already enacted legislation that prohibits cyberbullying. See examples from <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02795&sh=t">New York</a>, <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_86_bill_20080930_chaptered.html">California</a>, <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HR/09500HR1400.htm">Illinois</a>, and <a href="http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkEulVkkFAfLMcaLBB&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem">Missouri</a>. Congress has also gotten involved, drafting a bill to make cyberbullying a federal crime, also known as the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6123/text">Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act</a>.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-15138739668894886662008-10-29T12:30:00.009-04:002008-11-04T17:00:09.797-05:00Will Co-location Kill the Stock Exchange* or, Is Too Much Tech Bad for Business?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:eldr@umich.edu">Elina Druker</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL8rkjnvkW5bS6yjYBfcshm0JvJF02FfyeFYZjMb2ABnDdVz-57l6gxWYHTX63JU-_BXaCy6engN2QSTffGXVgsn_r67zpGFMaHq_9CPsmp4YfMbGZQ95A9Lc30q7FPNvBbDGgr6g28cA/s1600-h/druker-serverstack.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL8rkjnvkW5bS6yjYBfcshm0JvJF02FfyeFYZjMb2ABnDdVz-57l6gxWYHTX63JU-_BXaCy6engN2QSTffGXVgsn_r67zpGFMaHq_9CPsmp4YfMbGZQ95A9Lc30q7FPNvBbDGgr6g28cA/s200/druker-serverstack.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262547023834415650" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/redjar/360113468/">Stacked Servers</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/redjar/">redjar</a>.<br />Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en">BY-SA 2.0</a> license.</span></div><h2>A Brief Introduction to Relevant Developments</h2> <br />Technology is changing the course of investing. According to Ivy Schmerken of Advanced Trading, about 85% of all trading on U.S. exchanges is automated.<a name="drukerFN2anc" href="#drukerFN2sym"><sup>2</sup></a> Computer algorithms (algorithmic trading) are entering trading orders for over 30% of trades on traditional stock exchanges and possibly as high as 80% on American and equity markets.<a name="drukerFN3anc" href="#drukerFN3sym"><sup>3</sup></a> Trading algorithms are “a series of calculated steps strung together to … buy and sell large blocks of stock… [which] can be tuned to execute almost any strategy” in order to take advantageof momentary opportunities.<a name="drukerFN4anc" href="#drukerFN4sym"><sup>4</sup></a><br /><br />The success of an algorithm depends, not only on the formula’s strategy, but on the speed at which information is input and the trade executed. Algorithmic traders are constantly pushing trading systems to be faster. The cost of speed is astounding. According to Joel Clark, of Waters, a recent Tabb Group study “estimates that reducing the latency of transaction processing to gain a microsecond of improvement costs a firm approximately $250. Reducing latency by 6 milliseconds, then, equates to 6,000 microseconds and a possible cost of $1.5 million.”<a name="drukerFN5anc" href="#drukerFN5sym"><sup>5</sup></a><br /> <br />As a result of this ‘need-for-speed’ exchanges are in competition, not only with each other,<a name="drukerFN6anc" href="#drukerFN6sym"><sup>6</sup></a> but with other, faster trading methods such as Alternative Trading System (ATS). Unlike exchanges, which have been around long enough to have outdated infrastructures, new ATSs have the newest technology available, enabling them to “complete trades at up to ten times the speed of older rivals.”<a name="drukerFN7anc" href="#drukerFN7sym"><sup>7</sup></a> Popular ATSs, such as Electronic Communication Networks (ECNs) and most recently, Crossing Networks and Dark Pools, have numerous additional advantages over exchanges, including minimized market impact of bulk trades and anonymity. “What’s troubling overall for exchanges is how much market share they are losing to the other … innovative technology venues,” says Brad Bailey, senior analyst with the consulting firm Aite Group.<a name="drukerFN8anc" href="#drukerFN8sym"><sup>8</sup></a> Traditional exchanges’ market-share dropped from 86% to 73% in 2007-2008, and is expected to keep falling. Alternative Trading Systems now process 13% of all matched trades.<a name="drukerFN9anc" href="#drukerFN9sym"><sup>9</sup></a> ATS may be open to gaming, through pinging and front-running, and may fragment the market, but possible legal implications (and the S.E.C.) haven’t gotten in the way.<a name="drukerFN10anc" href="#drukerFN10sym"><sup>10</sup></a> One method of eliminating latency is called proximity hosting. <br /><br />Telecommunication companies, such as Savvis, place their hardware in or near an exchange’s data center. They then sell rack space close to the trading venue, or access to trading servers, the venue’s gateway or software.<a name="drukerFN11anc" href="#drukerFN11sym"><sup>11</sup></a> Subscribers of proximity hosting receive low latency connections to one or multiple closely located trading venues.<a name="drukerFN12anc" href="#drukerFN12sym"><sup>12</sup></a><br /><br /><h2>Implications of Automated Trading</h2><br />To stay competitive, exchanges have had to develop their own technologies. They have had to update physical infrastructure, develop technology to move trades from the floor to electronic trading, disseminate market data faster and create “low touch/ no touch trading strategies.”<a name="drukerFN13anc" href="#drukerFN13sym"><sup>13</sup></a> They have also changed the nature of the exchange business. Hundreds of independent exchanges have begun a mass consolidation. BNY ConvergEx’s Managing Director, Joe Cangemi expects much more consolidation, predicting that “there will be three or five survivors.”<a name="drukerFN14anc" href="#drukerFN14sym"><sup>14</sup></a><br /><br />Exchanges already wear many hats and charge for their services every step of the way. They charge traded companies “listing fees” and commission fees, and investors pay member and admission fees<a name="drukerFN15anc" href="#drukerFN15sym"><sup>15</sup></a>, fees for physical seats on the floor<a name="drukerFN16anc" href="#drukerFN16sym"><sup>16</sup></a>, fees per transaction<a name="drukerFN17anc" href="#drukerFN17sym"><sup>17</sup></a> for executing and updating trades, and market data providers also pay for publishing online and for subscriptions<a name="drukerFN18anc" href="#drukerFN18sym"><sup>18</sup></a> to real-time information.<br /><br />Recently, exchanges have entered the telecommunications business. They have started selling physical co-location of investor servers at the exchange’s data center, competing with those technology firms who offer low-latency proximity hosting. Co-location is like proximity hosting, except that the exchange hosts the subscriber’s box in its data center. It is closer to the information feed, thus faster, than proximity hosting. Co-location can diminish latency between a client and the exchange to below 64 microseconds.<a name="drukerFN19anc" href="#drukerFN19sym"><sup>19</sup></a> The London Stock Exchange’s co-location service, TradElect will double to 20,000 continuous messages per second, with end-to-end execution latency reduced to three milliseconds in October 2008.<a name="drukerFN20anc" href="#drukerFN20sym"><sup>20</sup></a><br /><br />Co-location, however, is a dangerous strategy for all parties.<br /><br />First, it’s expensive for subscribers. That means that institutional investors, nearly all of whom are using algorithms, can buy an advantage. Larger, well established investor groups can afford to co-locate while smaller boutiques<a name="drukerFN21anc" href="#drukerFN21sym"><sup>21</sup></a> cannot. This could create a barrier to market entry for small institutional investors. A few weeks ago, there were 6 major investment banks. Suddenly, the landscape has changed and co-location systems may prevent new market players from filling the spots left by the crisis.<br /><br />Second, exchanges do not have the infrastructure to prevent jitters in latency. <a name="drukerFN22anc" href="#drukerFN22sym"><sup>22</sup></a> Jitters and fluctuations in information can create unpredictable results. Unlike third party telecommunication companies, who can maintain some minimal amount of technology risk management, algorithms co-located with an exchange may act on unfiltered, possibly flawed data. Technology companies are in the business of keeping their software and hardware up-to-date. Exchanges wear too many hats to keep ahead of the technology curve. They simply are not in the best position to manage the flow of information.<br /><br />So, there are risks. So what? Well, if large institutional investors can block small investors from entering the modern algorithmic trading market, and can make risky decisions instantly, maybe someone should revive risk management and competition. Regulations need to prevent exchanges from wearing the technology-provider hat. Algorithmic trading already creates plenty of room for error and there is no room for additional error on the exchange side. Besides, should access to the best information really be the factor separating large and small investors?<br /><br /><hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN1sym" href="#drukerFN1anc"><b>*</b></a> The Buggles, <i>Video Killed the Radio Star</i>, 1979.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN2sym" href="#drukerFN2anc">2 </a> Ivy Schmerken, <i><a href="http://www.advancedtrading.com/exchanges/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JMF2PDVNVQDD4QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=202801090&pgno=3">Exchange Consolidation Wave Is Expected to Continue in 2008</a></i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Advanced Trading</span>, Nov. 1, 2007.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN3sym" href="#drukerFN3anc">3</a> Wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading#Issues_and_Developments"><i>Algorithmic Trading</i></a>.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN4sym" href="#drukerFN4anc">4</a> Mara Der Hovanesian, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm"><i>Cracking The Street's New Math</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Businessweek.com</span>, Apr. 18, 2005.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN5sym" href="#drukerFN5anc">5</a> Joel Clark, <a href="http://www.watersnews.com/public/showPage.html?page=788665"><i>Still the Need for Speed</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Waters</span>, Apr. 1, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN6sym" href="#drukerFN6anc">6</a> Wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading#Issues_and_Developments"><i>Algorithmic Trading</i></a>.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN7sym" href="#drukerFN7anc">7</a> <a href="http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11455085"><i>The battle of the bourses</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Economist</span>, May 29 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN8sym" href="#drukerFN8anc">8</a> Schmerken, <i>supra</i> note 2, <a href="http://www.advancedtrading.com/exchanges/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JMF2PDVNVQDD4QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=202801090&pgno=4">at page 4.</a><br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN9sym" href="#drukerFN9anc">9</a> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Economist</span>, <i>supra</i> note 7.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN10sym" href="#drukerFN10anc">10</a> <a href="http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/REG/693094670/-1/FWDAILYALERT01"><i>Video game? Dark pools battle pingers, gamers in unregulated markets</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Financial Week</span>, Apr. 22, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN11sym" href="#drukerFN11anc">11</a> <a href="http://www.automatedtrader.net/automated-trader-sponsored-articles-1142.xhtm"><i>Proximity Hosting: Plug’n’Trade or Pay’n’Wait?</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Automated Trader</span>, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN12sym" href="#drukerFN12anc">12</a> <a href="http://www.thetradenews.com/1312"><i>Check your speed</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Trade News</span>, Oct. 16, 2007.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN13sym" href="#drukerFN13anc">13</a> <a href="http://www.thetradenews.com/1312"><i>Id.</i></a><br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN14sym" href="#drukerFN14anc">14</a> Schmerken, <i>supra</i> note 2, <a href="http://www.advancedtrading.com/exchanges/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JMF2PDVNVQDD4QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=202801090&pgno=4">at page 4.</a><br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN15sym" href="#drukerFN15anc">15</a> <a href="http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/products/companyservices/joiningbeingonmarket/ukcompanyservices/beingonmarket/feescalc/"><i>Fees Calculator</i></a>, London Stock Exchange, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN16sym" href="#drukerFN16anc">16</a> Hillary Wicai, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4771492"><i>The Marketplace Report: Pricey Seats on the NYSE</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">National Public Radio</span>, Jul. 26, 2005.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN17sym" href="#drukerFN17anc">17</a> <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/13/business/fi-nyse13"><i>NYSE to cut back trading floor, costs</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">LA Times</span>, September 13, 2007, at print edition C-4.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN18sym" href="#drukerFN18anc">18</a> <i><a href="http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=18538">Nasdaq OMX launches free real-time market data service</a></i>, Finextra.com, Jun. 2, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN19sym" href="#drukerFN19anc">19</a> Rich Miller, <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/12/03/proximity-hosting-when-microseconds-matter/"><i>Proximity Hosting: When Microseconds Matter</i></a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Data Center Knowledge</span>, Dec. 3, 2007.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN20sym" href="#drukerFN20anc">20</a> Penny Crosman, <a href="http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/data-latency/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210201765">London Stock Exchange Offers Collocation</a>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Wall Street &Technology</span>, September 2, 2008.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN21sym" href="#drukerFN21anc">21</a> Admittedly, some small investors may gain access to co-location though their brokers, but at a high cost far exceeding what they would have had to pay for data in the past as emerging market players.<br /><a style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sup;" name="drukerFN22sym" href="#drukerFN22anc">22</a> Sun Microsystems, Inc., <a href="http://www.sun.com/solutions/documents/white-papers/fn_lowlatency_solaris.pdf"><i>Low Latency: </i><i>Eliminating Application Jitter with Solaris™</i></a>, May, 2007.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-30685283845661957742008-10-28T07:54:00.004-04:002008-10-28T08:05:40.241-04:00Virtual Worlds; Real Theft?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:agioia@umich.edu">Andrew Gioia</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtsbWGhNM2917hFgMTTQn0s2dMV2eUZVuvxi3dpKYQHNNheryQSNArvgRra7iYMQ2MN9uDeM2T1IuW4dqXukMqZjYBGRdL07nSO2TGivlSat42kfOvW5-mK_Nyrjafu0gmt9W3Cw5lJBk/s1600-h/Gioia-virtualworld.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 191px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtsbWGhNM2917hFgMTTQn0s2dMV2eUZVuvxi3dpKYQHNNheryQSNArvgRra7iYMQ2MN9uDeM2T1IuW4dqXukMqZjYBGRdL07nSO2TGivlSat42kfOvW5-mK_Nyrjafu0gmt9W3Cw5lJBk/s200/Gioia-virtualworld.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262173920335192194" /></a>Last week, a court in the Netherlands <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/23/23idg-Netherlands-tee.html">criminalized the theft of</A>”virtual goods.” (<A HREF="http://webwereld.nl/articles/53234/virtuele-diefstal-voortaan-strafbaar.html">Dutch news report</A>.) According to a ruling handed down by a Dutch court, two teenagers, aged 14 and 15, were found guilty of theft after physically coercing a 13-year-old boy into transferring virtual money, a virtual amulet, and a virtual mask to their accounts in the online fantasy adventure game, <A HREF="http://www.runescape.com/">RuneScape</A>. Though the court only dealt with the theft issue and not the more obvious assault, it plainly and forcefully held that “<A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/10/22/dltheft122.xml">[t]hese virtual goods are considered goods under Dutch law, so this is theft</A>.”<br /> <br />Despite both the clarity of this ruling and the apparent intellectual property and monetary value that can be derived from games with their own currency and property, game-based virtual theft claims have had a <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-dutch-court-imposes-real-world-punishment-for-virtual-theft.html">rather uncertain history</A>. For instance, <A HREF="http://secondlife.com/"><I>Second Life</I></A>, one of the Internet’s largest virtual realities, has seen both the <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070603-second-life-land-dispute-moves-offline-to-federal-courtroom.html">wrongful “taking” of in-game land</A> and a lawsuit between users for <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071030-pipping-off-virtual-world-sex-toys-leads-to-real-world-lawsuit.html">copying the design of objects</A> sold in <I>Second Life’s</I> marketplace in the past year alone.<br /><br />In the US, Minnesota police refused to recognize $4,000 of virtual currency stolen in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy"><I>Final Fantasy</I></A> as a crime, explaining that because <A HREF="http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/police-refuse-t.html">virtual items “are devoid of monetary value,”</A> no crime had actually been committed. Perhaps even more significantly, the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmorpg">MMORPG</A>, <A HREF="http://eve-online.com/"><I>EVE Online</I></A>, saw a large-scale <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060828-7605.html">banking scheme that defrauded</A> a number of users. The stolen money was estimated to be worth as much as $170,000 in the real-world <A HREF="http://www.ebay.com/">marketplace</A>, and the scam even got the <A HREF="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n2/7/">attention of some</A> in the legal community who likened it to <A HREF="http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1768">“actionable real-world fraud”</A>.<br /> <br />Virtual goods like these, including game-based currencies, may not only have real economic value, but online communities like <A HREF="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</A>, <A HREF="http://www.livejournal.com/">Live Journal</A>, and even <A HREF="http://www.dogster.com/">Dogster</A> have begun to create sentimental, communicative, and self-expressive <A HREF="http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/three-use-cases-for-virtual-goods.">value in virtual gifts</A> that members can send to each other. These businesses, as well as games like <I>Second Life</I> and <A HREF="http://www.gaiaonline.com/"><I>Gaia</I></A>, are in some cases making <A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10030354-62.html">tens of millions of dollars</A> in revenue by selling virtual goods to personalize virtual avatars, land, and the like, and at least South Korea has even begun <A HREF="http://kotaku.com/gaming/one-of-the-only-certainties-in-life/south-korea-to-tax-virtual-assets-273957.php">taxing these virtual property transactions</A>.<br /> <br />Ultimately, as long as virtual goods inside of video games can be converted into real economic value, online thefts like the one seen in the Netherlands will continue or even increase “as ‘criminals’ may think the court systems and the police are not educated in online gaming, or the law as it pertains to in-game items and cash.” As one <A HREF="http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2008/02/why-not-qualify.html">Dutch columnist argued</A> even before this recent virtual theft, “[a]s long as the original owner loses something of value (such as virtual items) due to the act of another individual who gains possession over the item, it should . . . be qualified as theft, no matter whether the <I>locus delicti </I>is in the physical or the virtual world.”MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-5208913765495603952008-10-23T00:32:00.003-04:002008-10-23T13:42:55.232-04:00Who Determines Post-Verdict Damage Awards for Patent Infringement in a Post-eBay World?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:sadowitz@umich.edu">Michael Sadowitz</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><H2>Introduction</H2><br />It was once almost a foregone conclusion that a court would grant a permanent injunction to the patentee, when finding a patent valid and infringed.<A NAME="sadowFN1anc" HREF="#sadowFN1sym"><STRONG><SUP>1</SUP></STRONG></A> The injunction functioned as a powerful negotiations tool, and put the balance of power in the patentee’s hands. In <I>eBay v. Mercexchange</I>, the Supreme Court held that the traditional four-factor test for granting a permanent injunction (irreparable injury, inadequacy of remedies at law, balance of hardships favoring the party seeking the injunction, and public interest) applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act.<A NAME="sadowFN2anc" HREF="#sadowFN2sym"><STRONG><SUP>2</SUP></STRONG></A> Thus after <I>eBay</I>, a patentee might find herself prevailing with a judgment of infringement, but not be granted an injunction.<A NAME="sadowFN3anc" HREF="#sadowFN3sym"><STRONG><SUP>3</SUP></STRONG></A> The Supreme Court did not provide guidance as to appropriate relief in such cases. The Federal Circuit has not significantly reduced that uncertainty, but it has declared that district courts should consider pre- and post-verdict damages separately.<A NAME="sadowFN4anc" HREF="#sadowFN4sym"><STRONG><SUP>4</SUP></STRONG></A> Who determines these damages? Is it a matter for the judge or the jury? For now, the answer is either, and in some cases, perhaps neither. <br /><br /><H2>The Federal Circuit: Pre-Verdict Infringement is Distinct from Post-Verdict Infringement</H2><br />In <I>Paice v. Toyota Motor Corp.</I>, the Federal Circuit found that the jury’s award of $25 per infringing vehicle was for pre-verdict infringement. The district court decided, with no articulated reasoning, to value the ongoing royalty at the same rate.<A NAME="sadowFN5anc" HREF="#sadowFN5sym"><STRONG><SUP>5</SUP></STRONG></A> The case was remanded to allow the district court to account for the change in the parties’ positions pre- and post-verdict.<A NAME="sadowFN6anc" HREF="#sadowFN6sym"><STRONG><SUP>6</SUP></STRONG></A> <br /><br />The <I>Paice</I>court allowed the district court, at its discretion, to have the parties attempt to negotiate a license before stepping in and assessing an ongoing royalty.<A NAME="sadowFN7anc" HREF="#sadowFN7sym"><STRONG><SUP>7</SUP></STRONG></A> Judge Rader, taking it a step further, would have required the court to have the parties negotiate or to obtain their permission before assessing the royalty.<A NAME="sadowFN8anc" HREF="#sadowFN8sym"><STRONG><SUP>8</SUP></STRONG></A> As Judge Rader saw it, the court was imposing a compulsory license but labeling it an “ongoing royalty.”<A NAME="sadowFN9anc" HREF="#sadowFN9sym"><STRONG><SUP>9</SUP></STRONG></A> However, if a compulsory license has the complexity and detail of other licenses, but an ongoing royalty is simply an imposition of damages for future infringement, then the compulsory licensee might be considered a <I>willful </I>infringer no longer, whereas the recipient of an ongoing royalty would still be willfully infringing.<A NAME="sadowFN10anc" HREF="#sadowFN10sym"><STRONG><SUP>10</SUP></STRONG></A> Since willful infringers are subject to enhanced damages up to a factor of three,<A NAME="sadowFN11anc" HREF="#sadowFN11sym"><STRONG><SUP>11</SUP></STRONG></A> the choice of courts to impose a royalty, a license, or to have the parties attempt a negotiation could have serious implications. <br /><br />Likewise, in <I>Amado v. Microsoft Corp. </I>the Federal Circuit found that the jury’s reasonable royalty of $0.04 per infringing unit, which was trebled for willful infringement and imposed as an ongoing royalty by the district court, was based on pre-verdict infringement.<A NAME="sadowFN12anc" HREF="#sadowFN12sym"><STRONG><SUP>12</SUP></STRONG></A> Further, this case<I> </I>involved different economic factors than <I>Paice</I> because that court had to determine a royalty under the denial of an injunction whereas the <I>Amado </I>court had stayed the injunction imposed on Microsoft so they could continue infringing.<A NAME="sadowFN13anc" HREF="#sadowFN13sym"><STRONG><SUP>13</SUP></STRONG></A> Therefore, there was no willful infringement because the court-ordered stay permitted it, and the damage assessment under threat of an injunction should consider the economic factors that such a threat imposes.<A NAME="sadowFN14anc" HREF="#sadowFN14sym"><STRONG><SUP>14</SUP></STRONG></A><br /><br />Both <I>Paice</I>and <I>Amado</I> allowed the district court to decide the royalty without a jury’s determination and without requiring the parties the opportunity to bargain. The <I>Paice</I>court specifically rejected the argument that Paice had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial to determine the ongoing royalty since a legal remedy, damages, was at stake. The court stated that a question of monetary relief does not necessarily imply a question of damages and the district court had discretion to determine the ongoing royalty.<A NAME="sadowFN15anc" HREF="#sadowFN15sym"><STRONG><SUP>15</SUP></STRONG></A> <br /><br /><H2>Recent Eastern District of Texas Cases: Juries Should Decide Ongoing Royalties</H2><br />A string of recent cases, all before Judge Ron Clark in the renowned Eastern District of Texas, lend support to the notion that ongoing royalties may be decided by juries more often than not in the future. In the absence of strong objections from the parties, Judge Clark will submit an ongoing royalty rate question to the juries in three cases pending trial.<A NAME="sadowFN16anc" HREF="#sadowFN16sym"><STRONG><SUP>16</SUP></STRONG></A> Judge Clark gives an example of such a question as follows:<A NAME="sadowFN17anc" HREF="#sadowFN17sym"><STRONG><SUP>17</SUP></STRONG></A> <br /><blockquote>What rate or sum of money, if any, do you find is adequate as a reasonable royalty to compensate Plaintiff for the conduct you found to infringe that occurs in the future? Answer in a percentage or in dollars and cents.</blockquote><br />Judge Clark stated that it makes sense to consider past and future damages simultaneously because there are some identical factors that go into both calculations.<A NAME="sadowFN18anc" HREF="#sadowFN18sym"><STRONG><SUP>18</SUP></STRONG></A> Judge Clark told the parties to have their damages experts analyze, and be prepared to answer questions related to, ongoing royalties or other future damages.<A NAME="sadowFN19anc" HREF="#sadowFN19sym"><STRONG><SUP>19</SUP></STRONG></A> \<br /><br />Another Judge Clark case, <I>Anascape v. Microsoft et al.</I>,<A NAME="sadowFN20anc" HREF="#sadowFN20sym"><STRONG><SUP>20</SUP></STRONG></A> involved a situation similar to <I>Amado</I>, where a permanent injunction was stayed conditioned upon payment of an ongoing royalty. The stay was conditioned upon an ongoing royalty of 7% of the selling price for one type of video game controller and 5% for another type of controller, to be paid by defendant Nintendo.<A NAME="sadowFN21anc" HREF="#sadowFN21sym"><STRONG><SUP>21</SUP></STRONG></A> The jury awarded $21 million in damages for pre-verdict infringement.<A NAME="sadowFN22anc" HREF="#sadowFN22sym"><STRONG><SUP>22</SUP></STRONG></A> It appears, although not expressly stated, that the jury decided the ongoing royalty as well.<br /><br /><H2>Can Post-Verdict Damages be Severed?</H2><br />The plaintiff in <I>Voda v. Cordis</I><A NAME="sadowFN23anc" HREF="#sadowFN23sym"><STRONG><SUP>23</SUP></STRONG></A> suggested severing the action for post-verdict damages. The court declined because it thought the only issue to be decided in a separate proceeding would be a “simple mathematical calculation based on defendant’s sales.”<A NAME="sadowFN24anc" HREF="#sadowFN24sym"><STRONG><SUP>24</SUP></STRONG></A> The jury awarded the plaintiff an ongoing royalty of 7.5% of defendant’s gross sales of infringing catheters.<A NAME="sadowFN25anc" HREF="#sadowFN25sym"><STRONG><SUP>25</SUP></STRONG></A> However, the somewhat bizarre <I>Avid v. Phillips</I><SUP><I><A NAME="sadowFN26anc" HREF="#sadowFN26sym"><STRONG><SUP>26</SUP></STRONG></A></I></SUP> case allowed severance of the post-verdict damages claim without reasoning.<A NAME="sadowFN27anc" HREF="#sadowFN27sym"><STRONG><SUP>27</SUP></STRONG></A> <br /><br /><H2>Conclusion</H2><br />Whether judges or juries decide post-verdict patent infringement damages appears to be largely up to the discretion of the district court. As long as the court considers pre- and post-verdict infringement separately, the Federal Circuit will likely not reverse the award based on which party decided the damages. If other courts follow Judge Clark in the Eastern District of Texas, it is likely that many future cases will allow the jury to decide ongoing damages. Who makes the calculation in a given case can have implications on the parties’ strategies for arguing damages, and if the jury decides, it could mean more judgments notwithstanding the verdict. Perhaps more importantly, if it is a question of fact, the jury’s determination is entitled to deference on appeal, whereas a question of law is subject to plenary review. The decision of who decides could be a battleground issue in future patent cases. <br /><br /><hr><span style="font-size:85%;"><A NAME="sadowFN1sym" HREF="#sadowFN1anc"><strong>1</strong></A> <I>See, e.g.,</I> <A HREF="http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/722/722.F2d.1542.83-842.83-841.html">Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.</a>, 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[t]he right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the essence of the concept of property”).<br /><A NAME="sadowFN2sym" HREF="#sadowFN2anc"><strong>2</strong></A> <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-130.pdf">eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC</a>, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN3sym" HREF="#sadowFN3anc"><strong>3</strong></A> <I>eBay,</I> 547 U.S. at 393-94. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN4sym" HREF="#sadowFN4anc"><strong>4</strong></A> <I>See</I> <A HREF="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1610.pdf">Paice, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.</a>, 504 F.3d 1293, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding the jury’s award of $25 per infringing vehicle for pre-verdict infringement only), <A HREF="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1236.pdf">Amado v. Microsoft Corp.</a>, 517 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding the jury’s award of $0.04 per infringing unit for pre-verdict infringement only).<br /><A NAME="sadowFN5sym" HREF="#sadowFN5anc"><strong>5</strong></A> <I>Paice</I>, 504 F.3d at 1315.<br /><A NAME="sadowFN6sym" HREF="#sadowFN6anc"><strong>6</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> (Remanding so the court could “take additional evidence if necessary to account for any additional economic factors arising out of the imposition of an ongoing royalty”); <I>id.</I> at 1317 (Rader, J., concurring) (“But pre-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties’ legal relationship and other factors”). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN7sym" HREF="#sadowFN7anc"><strong>7</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> at 1315 (majority opinion). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN8sym" HREF="#sadowFN8anc"><strong>8</strong></A> <I>Id. </I>at 1316 (Rader, J., concurring).<br /><A NAME="sadowFN9sym" HREF="#sadowFN9anc"><strong>9</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> <br /><A NAME="sadowFN10sym" HREF="#sadowFN10anc"><strong>10</strong></A> George M. Newcombe et al., <I><A HREF="http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/4-2/NYB204.pdf">Prospective Relief for Patent Infringement in a Post-eBay World</a></I>, 4 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus.</span> 549, 574 (2008).<br /><A NAME="sadowFN11sym" HREF="#sadowFN11anc"><strong>11</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> at 576. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN12sym" HREF="#sadowFN12anc"><strong>12</strong></A> <I>Amado</I>, 517 F.3d at 1359. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN13sym" HREF="#sadowFN13anc"><strong>13</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> at 1362. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN14sym" HREF="#sadowFN14anc"><strong>14</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> (listing factors such as “the infringer's likelihood of success on appeal, the infringer's ability to immediately comply with the injunction, the parties' reasonable expectations if the stay was entered by consent or stipulation, etc”). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN15sym" HREF="#sadowFN15anc"><strong>15</strong></A> <I>Paice</I>, 504 F.3d at 1316. The court cited for support an 1882 Supreme Court case that allowed the court, “in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits,” to decide compensation for past injury based on profits and not “by assessing damages.” <I>Id.</I> (citing <I>Root v. Ry. Co.</I>, 105 U.S. 189, 207 (1882)). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN16sym" HREF="#sadowFN16anc"><strong>16</strong></A> <I>See</I> Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp. et al, 9:07-cv-00273 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2008); SciCo v. Boston Scientific, 9:07-cv-0076 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2008); Iovate Health Sciences Inc. et al v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., 9:07-cv-00046 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2008). <br /><A NAME="sadowFN17sym" HREF="#sadowFN17anc"><strong>17</strong></A> <I>Seoul Semiconductor</I>, 9:07-cv-00273 at *1. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN18sym" HREF="#sadowFN18anc"><strong>18</strong></A> <I>Id. </I>at *2. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN19sym" HREF="#sadowFN19anc"><strong>19</strong></A> <I>Id.</I><br /><A NAME="sadowFN20sym" HREF="#sadowFN20anc"><strong>20</strong></A> Anascape, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., 9:06-cv-158 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2008).<br /><A NAME="sadowFN21sym" HREF="#sadowFN21anc"><strong>21</strong></A> <I>Id. </I>at *3-4.<br /><A NAME="sadowFN22sym" HREF="#sadowFN22anc"><strong>22</strong></A> <I>Id. </I>at *2. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN23sym" HREF="#sadowFN23anc"><strong>23</strong></A> Voda v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 2570614 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 5, 2006), <I>aff’d in relevant part</I>, 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008)<br /><A NAME="sadowFN24sym" HREF="#sadowFN24anc"><strong>24</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> at *6. <br /><A NAME="sadowFN25sym" HREF="#sadowFN25anc"><strong>25</strong></A> <I>Id.</I> at *1.<br /><A NAME="sadowFN26sym" HREF="#sadowFN26anc"><strong>26</strong></A> Avid Identification Sys. v. Phillips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2008 WL 819962 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008). In <I>Avid</I>, injunctions were denied because of “unclean hands” due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO which led to the unenforceability of one of the three patents-in-suit. <I>Id</I> at *13-14. The denial of an injunction for all three patents, where inequitable conduct was found relating to only one of the patents, was not explained by the court.<br /><A NAME="sadowFN27sym" HREF="#sadowFN27anc"><strong>27</strong></A> <I>Id. </I>at *13-14.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-65303544774596260562008-10-20T12:43:00.028-04:002008-10-20T16:04:45.927-04:00DIY Campaign<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:nsims@umich.edu">Nancy Sims</a>, MTTLR Blog Editor</i></span><br /><br />The McCain campaign's visual themes (i.e. <a href="http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/mccains-optimum-look/">the Optimum typeface</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2008/02/27/campaign_logos/">his simple star logo</a>) <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.johnmccain.com/"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUTXyoSn2wElRDrj_BfHshrzl10C57mNgZr4qyo6UxFwFTH0Dv-TZfdHHeP6HPi0cDdyq5ghjA3u351wnsKvS_DQklJbOa-E4gKmhiy8ljbB3UCQqVumizSIEhG5uqCzsNNGHe_vT7pC0/s200/star_n_wings.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259287258592978866" /></a> have drawn positive comments for the strength and military experience they convey. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.barackobama.com"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl1qLhLPPv8SUOc5TO37MEm3dV4oJEDTnzyap_EkAEW4DgAW6vZXOWLJxaHIowVp8jimfz_ur-IqD0ip-cGRhyphenhyphenUWR9rx7hPqX7rtUH48TCozFTYQogYkTmG_c9Eegtn_sd4c5X8rPzpWw/s200/obama_4color_omark.jpg" border="0" width="150px" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259288037944412850" /></a>But many commentators agree that the Obama "O" logo is a radical political innovation: <a href="http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/us-political-campaign-logos/">"probably the only political campaign logo to have a visual theme in it"</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2008/02/27/campaign_logos/">"[a] true logo, one that is recognizable apart from the candidate's name" and "the first sophisticated corporate-style identity to emerge from presidential politics"</a>, <a href="http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23974&seenIt=1">"signals by design that Obama has a different message"</a>, <a href="http://badbanana.vox.com/library/post/obama-logo-a-winner.html">"perhaps one of the few conceptual logos in the history of presidential elections"</a>, <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/01/27/what_font_says_change/">"[c]learly not the old standards of years past."</a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1AYCbypcIxRYo4UeS550yX7if1s8CHI04-w2uxVVyd-vk7x-YuYv1GiInH3g9rx0hJ1GgXtx9xv0HVaUyXXFHyxCRK-YN3HpDDLuC6nY6zwM4yRMCxjVDeA7QYZDxp1jPHskQ7Cg5fG8/s1600-h/w04logo.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1AYCbypcIxRYo4UeS550yX7if1s8CHI04-w2uxVVyd-vk7x-YuYv1GiInH3g9rx0hJ1GgXtx9xv0HVaUyXXFHyxCRK-YN3HpDDLuC6nY6zwM4yRMCxjVDeA7QYZDxp1jPHskQ7Cg5fG8/s200/w04logo.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259288582717846434" /></a>A few have <a href="http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2008/02/27/campaign_logos/">pointed out</a> that the Bush 2004 campaign's "W" logo was similarly identifiable, but it did not convey the same level of conceptual information.<br /><br />The "O" logo has been criticized as derivative of <a href="http://pointriderrepublican.typepad.com/pr/2008/10/obama-copied-logo.html">other</a> <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2008/08/14/20080814cr-obama0815.html">logos</a>, (although the <a href="http://noorslist.com/2008/02/07/mccains-campaign-uses-fast-food-logo/">same criticism</a> has been leveled with similar plausibility at the McCain logo.) For any number of possible reasons (its innovation, its visual impact, its simplicity, basic political demographics) the "O" logo has become a favorite new theme of makers, hackers, crafters and other habitues of the DIY/maker/remix culture. (In an attempt to keep this post politically neutral, I searched extensively for McCain remixes. The closest match I found were these commercially available <a href="http://www.mrsbeasleys.com/Product_Description.cfm?ProductID=938&ProductGroupID=85&SubPGID=475&CustID=944441329080021117986129520080923144449222">McCain logo cookies</a>.) Despite plausible copyright and trademark claims to the art and product-identifying use of the logo, unauthorized reinterpretations have rapidly proliferated.<br /><br />(For all of the following examples, click the thumbnail to see the image in its original context.)<br /><br />It's popular in food (particularly cookies):<table border="0" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><tr style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><td width="33%" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/2645939439/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-logoinveggies.jpg"></a><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by-nc-sa</span></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/23828326@N04/2470388141/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-logocupcake.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://teamsugar.com/group/212775/blog/2339449"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-TeamSugar-Obama_Logo_Cake.preview.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mosier/2597090888/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-obamacookies1.jpg"></a> </td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/megpi/2891664068/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-obamacookies2.jpg"></a><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by-nc-sa</span></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhf/2244001276/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-obamacookies3.jpg"></a><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by-nc</span></td></tr></table><br />Knitters and other textile and fabric crafters have also interpreted the logo:<table><tr><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/skullsnbats/2457774458/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-obamahat1.png"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://sewer-sewist.com/obamacraftproject/2008/09/19/knitting-pattern-download-obama-logo-hat/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-craftprojcet-obamahat2.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://yeswecanholdbabies.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/a-true-obama-baby/#more-307"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-YWCholdbabies-grandmasweater.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/23605321@N02/2309517995/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-crochetbabytoy.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sin_agua/2860670212/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-crochetlogo.jpg"></a><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by-nc-nd</span></td><td width="33%"> </td></tr><tr><td width="33%"><a href="http://sewer-sewist.com/obamacraftproject/2008/09/25/showing-support-through-a-love-of-quilting/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-craftproject-quiltedTeeshirt.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/katytron/2797856793/in/set-72157606176473485/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-totebag.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"> </td></tr></table><br />Several artisans have made their own "O" products:<table><tr><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=14969788"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-etsy-obamanecklace.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwaj/2907266450/in/photostream/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-obamaearrings.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timbutton/2148145412/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-obamastainedglass.jpg"><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by-nc-nd</span></a></td></tr></table><br />Finally, a few of the reinterpreted "O" logos defy categorization. They include:<table><tr><td width="33%">The Penn State <a href="http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/lionambassadors/events/szone.htm">S-Zone</a> is transformed into the O-Zone:<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/paintpoppy/2426007063/in/set-72157604631070377/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickrCC-O-zone.jpg"><br><span style="font-size: 65%">CC-licensed by</span></a></td><td width="33%">A bicycle wheel is transformed into a glowing "O":<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aneel/sets/72157607901134665/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-flickr-wheellogo.jpg"></a></td><td width="33%">A pregnant supporter displays her own "O" logo: <a href="http://yeswecanholdbabies.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/eventually-obama-will-hold-this-baby/"><img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsims/MTTLR/SM-YWCholdbabies-tummy.jpg"></a></td></tr></table><br />Additionally, the logo seems clearly a motivating factor for the Barack O-Lanterns of non-campaign-affiliated <a href="http://www.yeswecarve.com">Yes We Carve</a> and other <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/makelessnoise/2937085512/">Obama O'Lanterns</a>.<br /><br />It is interesting to note all the different claims people are making as to "ownership" of their logo-derivatives. A number of images are Creative Commons licensed, but with varying levels of control asserted (from the very loose "attribution" license, to the more restrictive "attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives" license.) Several of the images on Flickr also display the traditional "all rights reserved" language, but since this is the Flickr default, it doesn't necessarily mean a great deal. The creators of both the <a href="http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=14969788">necklace</a> and the <a href="http://www.barackobamajewelry.com/">earrings</a> have their derivative images for sale on craft website <a href="http://www.etsy.com">Etsy</a> - almost certainly a commercial use, although the necklace maker claims to be donating to the Obama campaign with every sale. <br /><br />In the midst of an intense political campaign, the Obama camp's interests may, in many ways, be opposite from those of most trademark and copyright owners. It is in the campaign's interest for the mark to be distributed widely. Although using the language of trademarks - the Obama website <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/downloads/">refers to</a> the "'O' Logomark" - this distinctive image does not appear to have been registered with the PTO (a <a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=35ta0v.1.1">TESS</a> search for "obama" yielded 38 results, none of which appeared to be for this image.) In fact, they make the image <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/downloads/">freely downloadable</a> in a variety of formats from the campaign website. <br /><br />Given the limited utility of the mark once the election is over, there is little incentive for the campaign to police others' uses of the mark, be they positive or negative. Without anyone having directly dedicated the "O" mark to the public domain, it appears to have become de facto public property.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-33002346116047352852008-10-18T01:19:00.011-04:002008-10-21T12:33:22.267-04:00The Large Hadron Collider: The Right to Not Be Destroyed in a Black Hole<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:ashleytan@umich.edu">Ashley Tan</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><h2>I. Suing to Save the World</h2><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: right; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbisson/306103797/"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/306103797_44d4d22dac_m.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbisson/306103797/">In the soul of the great machine</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/sbisson/">Simon Bisson</a>.<br />Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-ND 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the world yet? A <a href="http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/">tongue-in-cheek website</a> suggests not.<a name="tanFN1anc" href="#tanFN1sym"><sup>1</sup></a> The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), which is responsible for constructing and operating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), insists that fears about LHC-generated catastrophes are wholly without scientific foundation.<a name="tanFN2anc" href="#tanFN2sym"><sup>2</sup></a> However, a group called the Citizens Against The Large Hadron Collider, established by nuclear physicist and former U.S. nuclear safety officer Walter L. Wagner<a name="tanFN3anc" href="#tanFN3sym"><sup>3</sup></a>, not only argues that the LHC poses a significant danger of destroying the Earth, but has gone so far as to file in a U.S. district court in Hawaii to enjoin the LHC from proceeding to full operating capacity.<a name="tanFN4anc" href="#tanFN4sym"><sup>4</sup></a> Another group, led by German chemist and university professor Otto R<span lang="en">össler,</span> tried to file a similar injunction with the European Court of Human Rights.<a name="tanFN5anc" href="#tanFN5sym"><sup>5</sup></a> Scientists associated with the LHC have received death threats<a name="tanFN6anc" href="#tanFN6sym"><sup>6</sup></a>, hackers have broken into the LHC’s computers<a name="tanFN7anc" href="#tanFN7sym"><sup>7</sup></a>, and in India, a sixteen-year-old girl reportedly committed suicide out of fear after watching a television program about the LHC’s danger to the earth.<a name="tanFN8anc" href="#tanFN8sym"><sup>8</sup></a> Hollywood frequently raises the specter of wayward science giving birth to a global disaster, but rarely does it venture to the courtroom for a solution in such cases. Will the real world prove more creative?<br /> <br /><h2>II. What Is the Large Hadron Collider and Why Do People Fear It?</h2><br />The LHC is a particle accelerator, whose name derives from the fact that it is large—built in a ring shape under the countryside near Geneva, Switzerland, it has a radius of 27 kilometers (16.8 miles)—and that it accelerates hadron particles—better known to laymen as protons or ions—and engineers the collision of these particles.<a name="tanFN9anc" href="#tanFN9sym"><sup>9</sup></a> These collisions will occur at higher energies that are concentrated more densely than has ever been possible via man-made intervention before.<a name="tanFN10anc" href="#tanFN10sym"><sup>10</sup></a> By monitoring the results of the collisions, CERN scientists hope to recreate the conditions of the universe that existed a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and to prove or disprove elements of the Standard Model, which is the currently-reigning theory for explaining why the laws of physics in our universe operate the way that they do.<a name="tanFN11anc" href="#tanFN11sym"><sup>11</sup></a> On these statements, everyone can agree.<br /><br />Less agreed-upon is whether the LHC could also prove correct certain theories about microscopic black holes, magnetic monopoles and “strangelets” by creating them.<a name="tanFN12anc" href="#tanFN12sym"><sup>12</sup></a> A microscopic black hole is exactly what it sounds like: a tiny version of the black hole formed by the collapse of a dying star.<a name="tanFN13anc" href="#tanFN13sym"><sup>13</sup></a> According to the Citizens Against the LHC, the LHC could create such micro black holes at a rate of one per second, and if they accumulated, they would eventually suck the entire Earth into them.<a name="tanFN14anc" href="#tanFN14sym"><sup>14</sup></a> A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle that carries only one magnetic charge or “pole,” compared to the everyday magnet that always has a north and a south pole, and if they do exist, then theoretically, immediately upon creation they would begin to catalyze the decay of known particles like protons in an uncontrollable reaction similar to that of a nuclear bomb.<a name="tanFN15anc" href="#tanFN15sym"><sup>15</sup></a> And a strangelet is another hypothetical particle that, if it does exist and is created by the LHC, theoretically could trigger an unstoppable fusion reaction that would transform the whole planet into a gigantic strangelet.<a name="tanFN16anc" href="#tanFN16sym"><sup>16</sup></a><br /><br /><h2>III. Judging a Potential Global Catastrophe</h2><br />All three of the above scenarios would presumably end life as we know it if they came to pass, but CERN and most physicists believe that the probability of the LHC creating such scenarios is so infinitesimal as to be nonexistent.<a name="tanFN17anc" href="#tanFN17sym"><sup>17</sup></a> In particular, CERN argues that cosmic rays have entered the Earth every day for billions of years and while on Earth, have collided at far higher energies than the LHC will be able to produce without ever having resulted in a planet-wide catastrophe.<a name="tanFN18anc" href="#tanFN18sym"><sup>18</sup></a> Nevertheless, the Citizens Against the LHC, as represented by Spanish science writer Luís Sancho, have urged a U.S. district court in Hawaii to enjoin the LHC from full<br />operation.<a name="tanFN19anc" href="#tanFN19sym"><sup>19</sup></a><br /><br />The main allegations made by Sancho: 1) the U.S. government has failed to carry out an environmental impact study of the LHC under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including a period for review and comments by the public; and 2) the U.S. government has failed to follow the risk-management requirements of the European Union’s “Precautionary Principle.”<a name="tanFN20anc" href="#tanFN20sym"><sup>20</sup></a> The U.S. government has responded by questioning whether Sancho has standing to submit the case, whether a U.S. district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and whether the case is moot due to the statute of limitations.<a name="tanFN21anc" href="#tanFN21sym"><sup>21</sup></a> On the matter of standing, it argues that Sancho has not alleged a “credible injury” that is personal to him, given that the main substance of his claim is that the European-based LHC may trigger an event that would have to destroy the entire world to affect him.<a name="tanFN22anc" href="#tanFN22sym"><sup>22</sup></a> On the matter of jurisdiction, the U.S. government argues that the LHC is the responsibility of CERN, which is an international, non-governmental body in which the U.S. government plays no significant, active part.<a name="tanFN23anc" href="#tanFN23sym"><sup>23</sup></a> Alternatively, on the matter of mootness, the U.S. government holds that any duty of oversight would have arisen in 1997 or 1998, when the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Justice “committed” to the LHC project, and that such a duty has already expired.<a name="tanFN24anc" href= "#tanFN24sym"><sup>24</sup></a> Either way, the federal government argues it has no duty under the National Environmental Policy Act to conduct environmental-impact studies of the LHC, as that act only applies to federal agencies and CERN is not a federal agency.<a name="tanFN25anc" href="#tanFN25sym"><sup>25</sup></a><br /> <br /><h2>IV. The Timeline for Averting Planetary Destruction</h2><br />At a combined hearing for the U.S. government’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, Chief Judge Helen Gillmor seemed sympathetic to the government’s arguments for lack of jurisdiction and of standing.<a name="tanFN26anc" href="#tanFN26sym"><sup>26</sup></a> She ruled without permitting further argument that any allegations based on the Precautionary Principle of the EU would not be heard for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying EU law had not been incorporated into U.S. domestic law.<a name="tanFN27anc" href="#tanFN27sym"><sup>27</sup></a> However, after chiding both parties at length for committing numerous procedural errors, Judge Gillmor allowed them to continue filing documents with the proviso that each new filing must be with a leave of court to file.<a name="tanFN28anc" href="#tanFN28sym"><sup>28</sup></a><br /><br />On Sept. 26, 2008, Judge Gillmor heard the federal government’s motion to dismiss and granted it on the grounds that since the U.S.’s participation in the LHC project did not amount to a “major federal action” under NEPA, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the suit.<a name="tanFN29anc" href="#tanFN29sym"><sup>29</sup></a> The U.S.’s funding to CERN for the LHC constituted a relatively insignificant fraction of the total funding--$531 million out of an estimated $8 billion—and the U.S. also lacks control over the LHC, as its agreement with CERN only grants it non-voting “observer” status.<a name="tanFN30anc" href="#tanFN30sym"><sup>30</sup></a> Given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Gillmor declined to reach the issues of standing and mootness.<a name="tanFN31anc" href="#tanFN31sym"><sup>31</sup></a> While she noted that the suit is rooted in a “disagreement among scientists” that is of concern to a wider audience, Judge Gillmor was of the opinion that such “policy objections” were better addressed through the political process.<a name="tanFN32anc" href="#tanFN32sym"><sup>32</sup></a> So ends the legal action in the U.S. against the LHC, it would appear. <br><br /><br />A suit in the European Court of Human Rights for an injunction against the LHC was summarily rejected without an official ruling.<a name="tanFN33anc" href="#tanFN33sym"><sup>33</sup></a> But the Court is allowing the suit to proceed to judgment on the merits of a possible violation to the rights to life and to private family life, as guaranteed under the European Convention of Human Rights.<a name="tanFN34anc" href="#tanFN34sym"><sup>34</sup></a> In the meantime, the LHC has suffered several technical setbacks that will prevent full operation, and consequently those controversial particle collisions, for several months.<a name="tanFN35anc" href="#tanFN35sym"><sup>35</sup></a> It remains to be seen whether the European Court of Human Rights will evaluate the merits of the suit against the LHC, or whether CERN can fix the LHC in time to render that suit moot by virtue of operation without global destruction. <br /><br /><strong>Editor's Note:</strong> A number of commenters have raised concerns about the scientific qualifications of individuals involved in bringing these lawsuits. While we believe those qualifications are less relevant to the procedural legal issues discussed within the post, we wish to acknowledge the concerns. All qualifications as reported in this post are taken from the sworn affidavits of the parties involved. Certainly, if a case such as these were allowed to proceed to analysis on the merits, the qualifications of any scientific experts involved would be a serious issue. <br /><br /><hr><span style="font-size:85%;"><a name="tanFN1sym" href="#tanFN1anc"><sup>1.</sup></a> <a href="http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/">Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed the World Yet?</a> (last visited Oct. 17, 2008) <br /><a name="tanFN2sym" href="#tanFN2anc"><sup>2.</sup></a> <a href="http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR07.08E.html">Press Release</a>, CERN, CERN Reiterates Safety of LHC on Eve of First Beam (Sept. 5, 2008).<br /><a name="tanFN3sym" href="#tanFN3anc"><sup>3.</sup></a> <a href="http://lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php">Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider Legal Room</a> (last visited Sept. 27, 2008). <br /><a name="tanFN4sym" href="#tanFN4anc"><sup>4.</sup></a> <a href="http://lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Compl., 10-11</a>, March 14, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN5sym" href="#tanFN5anc"><sup>5.</sup></a> Richard Gray, <i><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html">Legal bid to stop CERN atom smasher from ‘destroying the world,’</a></i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Daily Telegraph</span>, Sept. 9, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN6sym" href="#tanFN6anc"><sup>6.</sup></a> Cgh, <i><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,577219,00.html">Large Hadron Collider: The Controversial Search for the God Particle</a></i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Spiegel Online International</span>, Sept. 9, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN7sym" href="#tanFN7anc"><sup>7.</sup></a> Roger Highfield, <i><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/12/scicern212.xml">Hackers attack Large Hadron Collider</a>,</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Daily Telegraph</span>, Sept. 12, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN8sym" href="#tanFN8anc"><sup>8.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm">Girl suicide ‘over Big Bang fear</a></i>,’ <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">BBC.com</span>, Sept. 11, 2008.<br /><a name="tanFN9sym" href="#tanFN9anc"><sup>9.</sup></a> CERN, <i><a href="http://cdsmedia.cern.ch/img/CERN-Brochure-2008-001-Eng.pdf">LHC: The Guide</a></i>, 15, 20. [hereinafter <i>LHC: The Guide</i>];<br />CERN, <i><a href="http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/general/geography/situation.htm">LHC Geographical Situation</a></i>. <br /><a name="tanFN10sym" href="#tanFN10anc"><sup>10.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://cdsmedia.cern.ch/img/CERN-Brochure-2008-001-Eng.pdf">LHC: The Guide</a></i>, <i>supra</i> note 8 at 3-4, 12, 21. <br /><a name="tanFN11sym" href="#tanFN11anc"><sup>11.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://cdsmedia.cern.ch/img/CERN-Brochure-2008-001-Eng.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 6, 11, 22-25. <br /><a name="tanFN12sym" href="#tanFN12anc"><sup>12.</sup></a> CERN, <i><a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html">The Safety of the LHC</a></i>. (last visited Sept. 19, 2008) [hereinafter<br /><i>Safety of the LHC</i>]; <a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Compl. 3-5.</a> <br /><a name="tanFN13sym" href="#tanFN13anc"><sup>13.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html">Safety of the LHC</a></i>, <a href="#tanFN11sym"><i>supra</i> note 12</a>. <br /><a name="tanFN14sym" href="#tanFN14anc"><sup>14.</sup></a> <a href="http://lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Compl. 4</a>; <a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Affidavit%20of%20Walter%20L.%20Wagner%20in%20Support%20of%20TRO.pdf">Wagner Aff.</a>, 6, March 14, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN15sym" href="#tanFN15anc"><sup>15.</sup></a> <a href="http://lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Compl. 4.</a><br /><a name="tanFN16sym" href="#tanFN16anc"><sup>16.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Id.</a></i><br /><a name="tanFN17sym" href="#tanFN17anc"><sup>17.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html">Safety of the LHC</a>, <a href="#tanFN11sym">supra</i> note 12</a>; LHC Safety Assessment Group, <i><a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0954-3899/35/11/115004/g8_11_115004.pdf?request-id=6fe06aee-e359-4067-b6a0-6fbafde19f5e">Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions</a></i>, 35 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">J. of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics</span> 115004, 115005-06 (2008). <br /><a name="tanFN18sym" href="#tanFN18anc"><sup>18.</sup></a> <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0954-3899/35/11/115004/g8_11_115004.pdf?request-id=6fe06aee-e359-4067-b6a0-6fbafde19f5e">LHC Safety Assessment Group</a>, <a href="#tanFN17sym"><i>supra</i> note 17</a> at 115006-08.<br /><a name="tanFN19sym" href="#tanFN19anc"><sup>19.</sup></a> <a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Compl., 10-11.</a><br /><a name="tanFN20sym" href="#tanFN20anc"><sup>20.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/Sancho%20v%20Doe%20-%20Complaint.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 6-10. For the EU, the Precautionary Principle provides a framework for deciding when governmental intervention to prevent harm to the environment or to the health of living things. <i> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf">Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle</a></i>, at 13-15, COM (2000) 1 final (Feb. 2, 2000).<br /><a name="tanFN21sym" href="#tanFN21anc"><sup>21.</sup></a> <a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Combined Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. for Summ. J.</a> Hr’g Tr. 12, 29, Sept. 2, 2008. <br /><a name="tanFN22sym" href="#tanFN22anc"><sup>22.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 25-27.<br /><a name="tanFN23sym" href="#tanFN23anc"><sup>23.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 10, 15-17. <br /><a name="tanFN24sym" href="#tanFN24anc"><sup>24.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 12-14. <br /><a name="tanFN25sym" href="#tanFN25anc"><sup>25.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 12-17. <br /><a name="tanFN26sym" href="#tanFN26anc"><sup>26.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 4-5, 23. <br /><a name="tanFN27sym" href="#tanFN27anc"><sup>27.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 4-5. <br /><a name="tanFN28sym" href="#tanFN28anc"><sup>28.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/pdf/080136%209-2-08.pdf">Id.</a></i> at 2-11, 29-30.<br /><a name="tanFN29sym" href="#tanFN29anc"><sup>29.</sup></a> Sancho v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 08-00136 HG KSC, 2008 WL 4370009, at *10 (D. Haw. Sept. 26, 2008). A <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/080926_LHCDecision.pdf">copy</a> of the ruling is available at: Alan Boyle, <i><a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/26/1457536.aspx">Doomsday lawsuit dismissed</a></i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">MSNBC Cosmic Log</span>, Sept. 26, 2008.<br /><a name="tanFN30sym" href="#tanFN30anc"><sup>30.</sup></a> <i>Id.</i> at *7-10<br /><a name="tanFN31sym" href="#tanFN31anc"><sup>31.</sup></a> <i>Id.</i> at *11.<br /><a name="tanFN32sym" href="#tanFN32anc"><sup>32.</sup></a> <i>Id</i>. (“‘Neither the language nor the history of NEPA suggests that it was intended to give citizens a general opportunity to air their policy objections to proposed federal actions. The political process, and not NEPA, provides the appropriate forum in which to air policy disagreements.’” (citing <i>Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy</i>, 460 U.S. 766, 777 (1983))).<br /><a name="tanFN33sym" href="#tanFN33anc"><sup>33.</sup></a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html">Gray</a>, <a href="#tanFN4sym"><i> supra</i> note 5</a>.<br /><a name="tanFN34sym" href="#tanFN34anc"><sup>34.</sup></a> <i><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html">Id.</a></i> <br /><a name="tanFN35sym" href="#tanFN35anc"><sup>35.</sup></a> <a href="http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR10.08E.html">Press Release</a>, CERN, LHC Re-Start Scheduled for 2009 (Sept. 23, 2008). <br /></span>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-52832626958478895152008-10-14T14:35:00.005-04:002008-10-18T14:03:38.076-04:00Policing the Police - Citizen Video Footage<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:wjradin@umich.edu">Wayland Radin</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</i></span><br /><br />As the ubiquity of Apple’s iPhone constantly reminds us, cellular phone technology has progressed to the point that its hard to find a phone that doesn’t have a camera. While <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROn_9302UHg">remarkable footage</a> has infrequently reached the public eye in the past, the omnipresence, simplicity, and unobtrusive nature of these cameras, coupled with the means to make their recordings immediately and publicly available (e.g. <a href="http://www.youtube.com">YouTube</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/explore/video/">Flickr</a>) has led to a new method of citizen oversight of public servants. <br /><br />The vast majority of the recordings made publicly available in this way chronicle what the owner of the camera phone believes to be suspect actions of law enforcement officers. For instance, the now infamous tasering of University of Florida student at a political forum has been viewed well over 3 million times. <br /><object width="380" height="308"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bVa6jn4rpE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bVa6jn4rpE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="380" height="308"></embed></object><br /><br />A similar incident in which a UCLA student was tazed for apparently failing to exit a University library quickly enough has been viewed upwards of 2 million times (in various YouTube iterations.) <br /><object width="380" height="308"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g7zlJx9u2E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g7zlJx9u2E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="380" height="308"></embed></object><br />(See the <a href="http://www.dailybruin.com/news/2006/nov/15/breaking-news-student-shot-wit">Daily Bruin</a> article detailing the event.)<br /><br />Though the potential effects of this mode of citizen oversight are far-reaching, they are felt most directly by the owner of the camera and the subject of the recording. In Oregon, several citizens have been <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2008/09/_by_aimee_green_after.html">ticketed</a> or <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2008/08/police_arrest_man_for_cell_pho.html">arrested</a> for recording the activities of on-duty police officers, under a state law allowing audio recording only if at least one party is aware of the recording. The man who was ticketed (and who filmed the video below) is <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2008/09/_by_aimee_green_after.html">now challenging the actions of the police department in a lawsuit.</a> <br /><object width="380" height="308"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eHMnFDdZY0c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eHMnFDdZY0c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="380" height="308"></embed></object><br /><br />And in New York, a police officer was <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/07/28/2008-07-28_rookie_cop_in_hot_water_after_video_show.html">stripped of his badge</a> and <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/charges-dropped-against-shoved-cyclist/">remains under investigation</a> for actions recorded in this video.<br /><object width="380" height="308"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oUkiyBVytRQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oUkiyBVytRQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="380" height="308"></embed></object><br /><br />While it may seem obvious that one should have the right to record what one would otherwise see and hear in public, the law is far from settled on the matter. It is unclear what expectation of privacy on-duty police offers might have, if any, <a href="http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html">given that they are performing a civic service in public</a>. Police officers, however, clearly have an interest in their safety and so <a href="http://mondoglobo.wftk.org/blog/qa/2008/03/camera-shy-police-arrest-obser.html">have argued that recording of police activity poses a threat to the officers themselves</a>.<br /><br />Because the current laws are unclear and inconsistent, as is their enforcement, I think more comprehensive regulation is likely. I would hope that this future regulation will explicitly allow citizens to record public servants performing their duties. There will, of course, be some caveats to protect the privacy of off-duty officers and the safety of all those involved, but on the whole I think we will (and should) see more instead of less citizen oversight enhanced by technology.<br /><br /><strong>ETA:</strong>For further information on citizen media activism, visit the <a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/">Citizen Media Law Project</a><br /><br /><strong>ETA2:</strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/videoyourvote">YouTube</a> and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/vote2008/2008/10/video-your-vote.html">PBS Vote 2008</a> have partnered to create the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/videoyourvote">Video Your Vote</a> initiative. They encourage voters to take and share video of their voting experiences, another opportunity for tech-assisted citizen oversight of government activities. Here's an overview:<br /><object width="380" height="308"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9UITDMO4Ay0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9UITDMO4Ay0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="380" height="308"></embed></object>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-47831295198020124242008-10-08T14:25:00.011-04:002008-10-08T15:24:47.864-04:00Employee text messaging privacy in the wake of the Detroit mayoral scandal<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:kaplanml@umich.edu">Marc Kaplan</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</i></span><br /><br /><div style="margin: 0px 20px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8hJhKqpS_dkB0Cs0ktBtNiAfbEdNLF3V2ptqxqq0_-v1ypr_PWTCChYgCmTwU7HZ6n_nIYS80t2JwISA93dQdYzjRcB0MuIY1OqK71tqQ4h0nUQmfaqlvWKYlEq3p1Gf2oN-nAkSMHUE/s1600-h/kaplan-texting.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8hJhKqpS_dkB0Cs0ktBtNiAfbEdNLF3V2ptqxqq0_-v1ypr_PWTCChYgCmTwU7HZ6n_nIYS80t2JwISA93dQdYzjRcB0MuIY1OqK71tqQ4h0nUQmfaqlvWKYlEq3p1Gf2oN-nAkSMHUE/s320/kaplan-texting.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254864381523697634"></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/1969871675/">Andy texting what Cheney should say</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/ari/">Steve Rhodes</a>.<br />Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC-SA 2.0</a> license.</span></div>Text messaging has exploded in popularity in the U.S. and around the world. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/20messaging.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1">Indeed, 75 billion text messages were sent in the U.S. in June 2008 and 40% of American teenagers believe they can text blindfolded</a>. With so many communications exchanged through this medium, the privacy of text messages has come under legal challenge in a number of contexts. Employees frequently have access to text-messaging through work-provided devices, and <a href="http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/16/Court_Texting_employee_should_keep_job/UPI-25111221598726/">not-uncommonly use the devices to send personal messages</a>. Whether they can expect privacy in relation to those messages is an unsettled legal matter.<br /><br /><h2>A case study: the Kilpatrick Scandal</h2><br />In one example, former Detroit mayor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick">Kwame Kilpatrick</a> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/5508288/Kwame-Kilpatrick-Resignation">resigned from office</a> in September, under criticism after his “private” text messages – from his government-issued pager – were revealed following a whistler-blower suit. The suit alleged that the mayor unlawfully discharged Detroit police officers because he was afraid the officers would reveal his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/20messaging.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1">extra-marital relationship</a> with his Chief of Staff, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Beatty">Christine Beatty</a>. At trial, the mayor contended that allegations of an affair were <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/news01/80227045">"preposterous"</a>, and the vigorous defense was able to preserve the text messages from discovery before the trial. Even without the messages as evidence, the jury found the mayor guilty and gave the aggrieved officers a multi-million dollar verdict.<br /><br />After the trial, the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining the text messages through subpoena, and discovered that they bared a rather different story than that maintained by Kilpatrick.<br /><blockquote>Beatty: "And, did you miss me, sexually?"<br /> Kilpatrick: "Hell yeah! You couldn't tell. I want some more. "<br /> <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/NEWS05/801240414/&imw=Y">Detroit Free Press</a></blockquote>With this new leverage, the plaintiffs offered to settle as opposed to fighting through the appeal. The mayor agreed to the settlement, in what appears to have been an attempt to cover up the newly exposed text messages.Although the issue was litigated all the way to the <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20080227/NEWS01/80227029/1003/news01">Michigan Supreme Court</a> it was eventually ruled that the settlement agreement was a public record and subject to the state’s <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-17337_18160-51242--,00.html">freedom of information act</a>.The text messages, now accessible to the public, have continued to be relevant in subsequent proceedings against <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20080904/NEWS0101/80904113/1003/news01">Kilpatrick</a> and <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20080915/NEWS01/80915088/1003/news01">Beatty</a> for perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, misconduct, and other charges. <br /><br /><h2>Employee privacy protections</h2><br />Courts have split over the protections given to text messaging, attempting to weigh the need to access communications in the ubiquitous and casually-used medium against privacy concerns.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/D2CDDB4098D7AFB28825746C0048ED24/$file/0755282.pdf"><i>Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co</i></a><i></i>, a <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/whos-snooping-on-you-at-work/?hp">highly</a> <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/19/local/me-text19">publicized</a> case factually similar to Kilpatrick’s, a police department searched an officer’s text messages to determine whether the officer exceeded his quota of text messages by using it for personal communications. The district court held that the officer’s text messages sent through the government-issued pager were subject to the privacy protections of the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html">Stored Communications Act</a> and were therefore not searchable by his employer. The 9<sup>th</sup> Circuit <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/D2CDDB4098D7AFB28825746C0048ED24/$file/0755282.pdf?openelement">affirmed in part</a> and held that the officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages and that the search had violated his 4<sup>th</sup> Amendment rights. <br /> <br />Not all courts have broadly construed the Stored Communications Act or constitutional protections of text message privacy. Indeed, in a separate case involving Mayor Kilpatrick’s text messages as they related to a murder investigation, a district court in the 6<sup>th</sup> Circuit <a href="http://www.thebusinessoflaw.com/legalservices/practice/litigation/ediscotech/eblog/resources/flaggII.pdf">breezily distinguished</a> <i>Quon</i> by holding that it was inapplicable to a case with the same fact pattern but where personal text messages were not the <i>target</i>of the search.<br /><br />These holdings appear <a href="http://www.proskauer.com/news_publications/newsletters/newmedia_tech/2008_09_12/_res/id=sa_PDF/12020829_16837-090008-New%20Media.pdf">contradictory</a>, but the more important issue may be what questions the cases leave unanswered. <i>Quon</i>does not specify whether the holding should <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_15-2008_06_21.shtml#1213821576">apply to both public and private employers</a>. Commentators also <a href="http://privacyblog.littler.com/2008/06/articles/electronic-monitoring/quon-ruling-not-a-significant-obstacle-to-employers-accessing-text-messages/">also</a> <a href="http://www.sonnenschein.com/practice_areas/icdp/pub_detail.aspx?id=45505&type=E-Alerts">disagree</a> on whether <i>Quon</i> will change employers’ practices significantly. Drawing general rules from these cases or trying to predict the direction of this fertile area of the law appears fraught with danger, as does texting personal messages from your work-issued Blackberry®, unless you live in California.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-90484284868078367562008-10-07T17:32:00.011-04:002008-10-08T15:26:03.251-04:00Free Online Music - That's Legal<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:wandrich@umich.edu">Bill Andrichik</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</i></span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgehA17gPKqNvlpQIqTWCxgHDPckSUN3rEoUXGPursOJwHRxSkExXwPwY7Ft52xfJV5l1NYTCgrdKoe9S7qm-Qz5NddgJdXmcm9ToLtdpkxqjrZt5VFUEg4TUXThtmDJX5S7oOF7ieFc24/s1600-h/MySpaceMusic10_07_08.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgehA17gPKqNvlpQIqTWCxgHDPckSUN3rEoUXGPursOJwHRxSkExXwPwY7Ft52xfJV5l1NYTCgrdKoe9S7qm-Qz5NddgJdXmcm9ToLtdpkxqjrZt5VFUEg4TUXThtmDJX5S7oOF7ieFc24/s320/MySpaceMusic10_07_08.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254533610055447442" /></a>The next round of the ongoing legal battle between the music industry and online music providers is here. This time the new <a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=music">MySpace Music</a> (launched September 25, 2008) has taken several key steps to avoid the legal issues that plagued peer-to-peer filesharing services like <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm">Napster</a>, <a href="http://homepages.law.asu.edu/%7Edkarjala/cyberlaw/InReAimster%289C6-30-03%29.htm">Aimster</a>, <a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20040819.asp">Grokster</a> and others. The new site allows users to listen to the music of their choice, at no monetary cost, funding the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/09/23/music-royalties-settlement-tech-cx_pco_0923paidcontent.html">mechanical royalties</a> required for streaming audio through advertising directly to users. It limits personal use of the songs, only allowing music to be played if a user is connected to the MySpace site. If a user wants to use a song independently of the site, as on a personal mp3 player, he or she can link to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b/?ie=UTF8&node=163856011&tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=2410452201&ref=pd_sl_71g7zjo3a7_b">Amazon mp3</a> site and purchase it.<br /><br />Though it is no more or less “legal” than the popular online music source <a href="http://www.apple.com/itunes/">iTunes</a>, MySpace music does get one step closer to giving users what they have been missing since the legal collapse of Napster, Kazaa, and the like. “<a href="http://www.mtvu.com/news/articles/1595649/20080925/index.jhtml">The goal is to make it as easy and compelling as stealing</a>,” says one site representative Steve Pearman. Though the site is clear about its objectives on that front, the timing of the release is also advantageous for them. It coincides with rival <a href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</a>’s redesign that has left many users <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/09/22/facebook.facelift/index.html">disgruntled</a>. A potential wave of users looking for a new social networking site, coupled with a number of twenty-somethings feeling nostalgic about getting free music without worrying about legal troubles might just make MySpace Music a serious competitor.<br /><br />The biggest step that MySpace has taken to prevent the legal actions faced by past online music providers is its cooperation with the music industry and individual artists. MySpace has long been a forum for new and established artists to advertise and release music, but it went one step further before launching the new site by <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2552011020080925">partnering with</a> the “big four” of the music industry (Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music, Warner Music Group, and EMI Music) as well as indie aggregator the Orchard. Partnering with the major record labels <i>before</i> launch ensures that all use of music is legal and approved by the artists/record labels. MySpace also avoids legal risk by paying the necessary royalties each time a song is played by a user.<br /><br />Even with these initial precautions, MySpace may not entirely avoid legal risk. It is very easy to imagine certain users of the site overriding the safeguards and somehow using the site to download free versions of songs onto their computers without paying the fee to Amazon. The site’s biggest defense against liability in that instance lies with their partnership with the music industry and the fact that they would likely be a victim rather than an enabler in that instance. Another potential source of strife is the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2552011020080925">lack of partnership with most indie labels</a>. It remains to be seen whether the site will be able to eventually add these labels or have to face the backlash from artists feeling they have been left out of the deal.<br /><br /><h2>Observations</h2><br />Though the site is only a few days old and MySpace promises to constantly change it to keep up with user input and demands, below are some observations from my first experience with the site:<br /><br /><b>Pros</b><br />+ The music service is very user-friendly (even for someone like myself who did not previously have a MySpace profile).<br />+ The site <a href="http://www.myspace.com/aplaceformusic">integrates the benefits from its previous music site</a>by allowing users to add songs to their playlist via a database search, sharing with other friends on MySpace or through the artists’ profiles themselves which also offer music videos, blogs, and tour updates as you listen to the music.<br />+ MySpace still allows established or up-and-coming artists the freedom to promote themselves and their music in they way they want to.</li><br /><br /><b>Cons</b><br />- The advertising causes a slight delay and the music is occasionally interrupted when adding new songs to the play list.<br />- The initial lack of indie labels leaves some users wanting more variety.<br />- The search feature returns songs from all users on the site (not just professional artists) so it is a partial return to the days of Napster and Kazaa where it is sometimes hard to find a non-remixed version of a song or one that has not been edited for the radio.MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-82548003140235645232008-09-29T23:14:00.008-04:002008-10-08T13:17:50.496-04:00Universities Allied for Essential Medicines: Can a Student Group Influence University Technology Licensing Policies?<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:semoyer@umich.edu">Stephen Moyer</a>, Associate Editor, MTTLR</i></span><br /><br /><H2>Introduction</H2> <br /><div style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0px; float: right; width: 240px; line-height: 60%; text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKiZFeqYZ7vZJZf8pQVOrz2fhc5z99QFLXMJjnjne1dCWdjuXpX8XOh0RO9cRsJIcAymZKU0u9Y2XbkKaN2J8vPJBfwKQWFisdRzIz2m5TRcGShjVpQgJbe3gZpH-v9vw6P4u4Vz9VJlU/s1600-h/moyer-bioticlensbaby.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKiZFeqYZ7vZJZf8pQVOrz2fhc5z99QFLXMJjnjne1dCWdjuXpX8XOh0RO9cRsJIcAymZKU0u9Y2XbkKaN2J8vPJBfwKQWFisdRzIz2m5TRcGShjVpQgJbe3gZpH-v9vw6P4u4Vz9VJlU/s320/moyer-bioticlensbaby.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251652128788893330" /></a><span style="font-size:60%;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparktography/388889060/">Biotic lensbaby</a> by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/sparktography/">Sparky</a>.<br />Used under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en">BY-NC 2.0</a> license.</span></div><br />The contributions of research universities to worldwide scientific progress have traditionally been focused on basic scientific discoveries, rather than efforts to ensure that their scientific discoveries actually reach people throughout the world.. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN1anc" HREF="#moyerFN1sym"><SUP>1</SUP></A> is a non-profit organization that works with faculty and student groups to help ensure the availability of essential medicines in poor countries.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN2anc" HREF="#moyerFN2sym"><SUP>2</SUP></A> Among other activities, UAEM hopes to persuade universities to commit to the principle that when they license university-developed medical-related technologies to private companies, a condition of the license will be that the private company agree to make medicines that are created using the university-developed technology available to the developing world at the lowest possible cost.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN3anc" HREF="#moyerFN3sym"><SUP>3</SUP></A><br /> <br />The history of this movement stretches back to 2001 when Yale University students became aware that an important anti-HIV medication, stavudine (also known as d4T), that had been developed at Yale and licensed by Yale to the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), was not available to many HIV-positive patients in South Africa because of its high cost. <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN4anc" HREF="#moyerFN4sym"><SUP>4</SUP></A> The high cost of the drug stemmed at least in part from the fact that it was under patent protection in South Africa.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN5anc" HREF="#moyerFN5sym"><SUP>5</SUP></A> After Yale students and others petitioned Yale and BMS not to enforce the patent in South Africa, BMS ultimately agreed to the proposal, which thereby enabled the sale of much cheaper generic versions of the drug. <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN6anc" HREF="#moyerFN6sym"><SUP>6</SUP></A><br /><br /> From this experience (which received a substantial amount of national publicity <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN7anc" HREF="#moyerFN7sym"><SUP>7</SUP></A>) and the understanding that universities are a major source of scientific discoveries that lead to the development of new medicines,<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN8anc" HREF="#moyerFN8sym"><SUP>8</SUP></A> students at Yale and other universities became convinced of the need for a national organization that would seek to persuade universities to ensure that university-developed scientific advances do not fail to reach people in developing countries because of intellectual property protection of the drugs.<br /><br /> <H2>UAEM’s Argument </H2><br />The general proposition that drug companies should make medicines available to low income countries at the lowest possible cost is easy to support on a humanitarian level, but the proposition may appear less realistic on a practical level: pharmaceutical research and development are costly, as is the manufacture of drugs. Patent protection for new drugs is understood to be integral to the ability of pharmaceutical companies to generate income, recoup their costs, and make drug development profitable to fund on-going research. UAEM argrees that patent protection of new drugs is indeed necessary and appropriate in developed countries, but argues that patent protection of new drugs in developing countries can be harmful. First-world prices are prohibitive for most third-world consumers – drug companies do not realize significant amounts of income from poorer countries, precisely because the high prices result in comparatively small amounts of drugs sold.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN9anc" HREF="#moyerFN9sym"><SUP>9</SUP></A> Therefore, UAEM argues that universities and drug companies can make their drugs available to developing countries at low cost, realize higher volumes of sales, and still generate nearly the same profits as they would by selling higher-cost versions of the drugs in these countries. <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN10anc" HREF="#moyerFN10sym"><SUP>10</SUP></A><br /><br /><H2>Philadelphia Consensus Statement and Annual Meetings</H2><br />In 2006, UAEM drafted a concise document that captures the major goals of the organization, the “Philadelphia Consensus Statement” (PCS).<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN11anc" HREF="#moyerFN11sym"><SUP>11</SUP></A> The PCS is a collection of recommendations that UAEM urges universities to adopt, the key recommendations being that, in addition to ensuring that university-developed technologies are available to developing countries, universities should also promote research into diseases that primarily affect developing countries, and that universities should measure their success at research based on its “impact on human welfare”, rather than just its scientific or income-producing value.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN12anc" HREF="#moyerFN12sym"><SUP>12</SUP></A> UAEM obtained support of many prominent individuals and organizations for the PCS, with a list of initial signatories to the PCS that includes multiple Nobel prize winners, university leaders, and international organizations.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN13anc" HREF="#moyerFN13sym"><SUP>13</SUP></A><br /><br /> UAEM has held national meetings every year since 2005 to further develop and coordinate its efforts; this year’s meeting will be held at the University of California-Berkeley, on October 17-19, 2008.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN14anc" HREF="#moyerFN14sym"><SUP>14</SUP></A><br /> <br /><H2>Some Criticisms of UAEM’s Approach</H2><br />While most people support UAEM's mission, some are concerned that UAEM’s efforts regarding university technology licensing may be ineffective or even counter-productive towards the overall objective of increasing access to medicines. <br /><br />One concern is that it frequently may not be possible for a university to only license technologies to companies that are willing to make drugs available to developing countries at low cost; it can be difficult for universities to find any companies interested in licensing their technologies. The more restrictions the university puts on licensing agreements, these critics argue, the more difficult it may be for the university to find a party interested in licensing the university technology. <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN15anc" HREF="#moyerFN15sym"><SUP>15</SUP></A><br /><br />Another concern is that if companies agree to allow lower-priced generic versions of drugs to be produced in developing countries while those drugs are still patent-protected in developed countries, the generic drugs could be smuggled into developed countries, and severely damage drug sales there<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN16anc" HREF="#moyerFN16sym"><SUP>16</SUP></A>. UAEM counters that there is not evidence that this type of transfer happens on a large scale, and that drugs can be marked with identifying source information, in order to minimize this problem. <A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN17anc" HREF="#moyerFN17sym"><SUP>17</SUP></A><br /> <br /><H2>Conclusion</H2><br />Access to medicine remains a major problem worldwide – the World Health Organization estimates that about 10 million people die every year because they do not have access to existing medicines.<A CLASS="moyerFNanc" NAME="moyerFN18anc" HREF="#moyerFN18sym"><SUP>18</SUP></A> Universities play a major role in developing new medicines, and it is consistent with the mission of universities to ensure that medicines developed on their campuses reach as much of the world’s population as possible. While it remains to be seen what impact UAEM’s efforts will have on universities’ technology licensing policies in the long term, UAEM has brought attention to the important connection between university research and global access to medicine.<br /><br /><hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><A NAME="moyerFN1sym" HREF="#moyerFN1anc"><SUP><Strong>1</strong></SUP></A>. <A HREF="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Universities Allied for Essential Medicines</span></a> <br /><A NAME="moyerFN2sym" HREF="#moyerFN2anc"><SUP><Strong>2</strong></SUP></A>. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/about-us/">About Us</a></span>. <br /><A NAME="moyerFN3sym" HREF="#moyerFN3anc"><SUP><Strong>3</strong></SUP></A>. <I>See </I>Ethan Guillen and Rachel Kiddell-Monroe, <I><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/03/research_universities_must_act/">Research Universities Must Act</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Boston Globe</span>, Oct 3, 2007.<br /><A NAME="moyerFN4sym" HREF="#moyerFN4anc"><SUP><Strong>4</strong></SUP></A>. Daryl Lindsey, <I><A HREF="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/05/01/aids/">Amy and Goliath</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Salon.com</span>, May 1, 2001.<br /><A NAME="moyerFN5sym" HREF="#moyerFN5anc"><SUP><Strong>5</strong></SUP></A>. <I>See id.</I><br /><A NAME="moyerFN6sym" HREF="#moyerFN6anc"><SUP><Strong>6</strong></SUP></A>. Amy Kapczynksi, E. Tyler Crone, and Michael Merson, <I><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/301/5640/1629">Global Health and University Patents</a></I> 301 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Science</span> 1629,(2003).<br /><A NAME="moyerFN7sym" HREF="#moyerFN7anc"><SUP><Strong>7</strong></SUP></A>. <I>See, e.g.</I> Donald McNeil, <I><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1DB133AF931A25750C0A9679C8B63">Yale Pressed to Help Cut Drug Costs in Africa</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">New York Times</span>, Mar. 12, 2001; Abigail Zuger, <I><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E2DA103DF933A15750C0A9679C8B63">A Molecular Offspring, Off to Join the AIDS Wars</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">New York Times</span>, Mar. 20, 2001.<br /><A NAME="moyerFN8sym" HREF="#moyerFN8anc"><SUP><Strong>8</strong></SUP></A>. <I><a href="http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/cache/news/200705084.html">Universities, Not Companies, Drive Biotech Advancement</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">UCSF Today</span>, May 8, 2007.<br /><A NAME="moyerFN9sym" HREF="#moyerFN9anc"><SUP><Strong>9</strong></SUP></A>. Samantha Chaifetz, et. al. <I><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Globalization&Health.pdf">Closing the access gap for health innovations: an open licensing proposal for universities</a></I>, 3 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Globalization and Health</span> 1, (2007).<br /><A NAME="moyerFN10sym" HREF="#moyerFN10anc"><SUP><Strong>10</strong></SUP></A> David Chokshi <I><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ChokshiPLOSpdf.pdf">Improving Access to Medicines in Poor Countries: The Role of Universities</a></I>, 3 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">PLoS Medicine</span> 0723, 0725 (2006).<br /><A NAME="moyerFN11sym" HREF="#moyerFN11anc"><SUP><Strong>11</strong></SUP></A>. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/cs/?page_id=3">Philadelphia Consensus Statement</a></span>, (2006). <br /><A NAME="moyerFN12sym" HREF="#moyerFN12anc"><SUP><Strong>12</strong></SUP></A>. <I>Id.</I><br /><A NAME="moyerFN13sym" HREF="#moyerFN13anc"><SUP><Strong>13</strong></SUP></A>. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/cs/?page_id=4">Philadelphia Consensus Statement – Initial Signatories</a></span>. <br /><A NAME="moyerFN14sym" HREF="#moyerFN14anc"><SUP><Strong>14</strong></SUP></A>. Universities Allied for Essential Medicine, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/fall-conference/register/">2008 Conference Registration</a></span>. <br /><A NAME="moyerFN15sym" HREF="#moyerFN15anc"><SUP><Strong>15</strong></SUP></A>. Erika Check, <I><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/444412b.html">Universities urged to do more for poor nations</a></I>, 444 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Nature</span> 412 (2006).<br /><A NAME="moyerFN16sym" HREF="#moyerFN16anc"><SUP><Strong>16</strong></SUP></A>. David Chokshi,<I><a href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ChokshiPLOSpdf.pdf">Improving Access</a></I> at 0725. <br /><A NAME="moyerFN17sym" HREF="#moyerFN17anc"><SUP><Strong>17</strong></SUP></A>. <I>Id.</I> <br /><A NAME="moyerFN18sym" HREF="#moyerFN18anc"><SUP><Strong>18</strong></SUP></A>. World Health Organization, <I><a href="http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_EDM_2004.4.pdf">Equitable access to essential medicines: a framework for collective action</a></I>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">WHO Policy Perspectives on Medicines</span>, March, 2004.</span>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-32397771983596720462008-09-22T09:00:00.000-04:002008-09-22T09:00:00.747-04:00ICANN Ushers In New Era for Domain Names<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>by: <a href="mailto:mlwillar@umich.edu">Morgan Willard</a>, MTTLR Associate Editor</i></span><i><br /></i><p></p><p>This past June, the <a title="ICANN" href="http://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers</a> voted upon and approved a set of measures that constitute sweeping changes for the way that the Domain Name System (DNS), the set of rules governing how internet addresses are located and assigned, works.</p> <p>Specifically, the measures included two major expansions to how domain names will be registered in the future:</p> <ol><li><strong>Global Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)</strong>, the universal extensions such as .com, .net, and .info that are appended to all web addresses, will no longer be restricted to a finite list that is voted upon and expanded by <span class="caps">ICANN</span> itself. </li><li>Domain names will now accomodate <strong>non-Latin character sets</strong> such as Arabic and Cyrillic. </li></ol> <p>Both of these resolutions will have far-reaching implications for citizens of the internet.</p> <h2>Global Top-Level Domain Expansion</h2> <p>Hailed by <span class="caps">ICANN</span> as <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-26jun08-en.htm">“a massive increase in the ‘real estate’ of the Internet”</a>, it will soon be possible for companies and organizations to apply for the creation of a new gTLD. It is expected that there will be several different types of gTLDs that will quickly generate applications:</p> <ul><li><strong>Generic Words:</strong> Categorical words such as the already existing .travel gTLD will likely spring up quickly to appeal to a wide variety of potential registrants. Expect to see applications for everything from .salon to .banana. </li><li><strong>Regional Names:</strong> While countries are already able to get gTLD names through the <a href="http://www.iana.org/cctld/">Country Code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) system</a>, it is expected that a variety of other geographic and cultural communities will be interested in their own gTLD (imagine .nyc for New York City) similar to the existing .cat domain for the Catalan community. </li><li><strong>Brands:</strong> Global brand names such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/">Amazon</a> and <a href="http://www.cocacola.com/">Coca-Cola</a> will likely be interested in having a gTLD of their own. </li></ul> <p>While the new system will open up many opportunities for enterprising organizations and possibly allow companies to stop <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jun/20/enoughoftheweb20namesalr">sitting on a keyboard</a> to create a short domain name, there are also valid concerns (especially for trademark holders) about such an open system.</p> <h2>Non-Latin Character Domain Names</h2> <p>Until the recent vote, all domain names had to be using the Roman alphabet. That is, even though there were country-specific TLDs for Russia (.ru) or China (.cn), the domain name itself had to be in the Roman alphabet. This was due to technical limitations: domain names previously used the <span class="caps">ASCII</span> (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) standard which is based on the English alphabet and does not allow for most non-English characters. In the future, the Unicode system will be used which allows for every character of every language to be represented.</p> <p>This expansion will allow greater accessibility to the global internet community, as non-English-speaking users will now be able to access domains in their native language instead of having to learn and remember a different character set for interacting with the internet. However, there are some concerns that phishers (identity thieves) could create domain names using characters similar, but not identical, to their Latin counterparts to make domain names that may be misleadings to online users.</p> <h2>Further Analysis and Reading</h2> <p>For more information and analysis of the impacts of these changes, here are some useful links:</p> <ul><li><span class="caps">ICANN</span>’s official announcements <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-26jun08-en.htm">about the meeting</a> and <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-26jun08-en.htm">about the new gTLD system</a>. </li><li>Computer World has a <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9103959">good overview of the changes with a variety of viewpoints</a>. </li><li>Com Laude, a domain registrar, published an <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/4600716/CL-Newsletter-Summer-08">in-depth briefing newsletter about the new gTLD system and its effects</a>. </li><li>The Industry Standard: writes about why <a href="http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/07/08/chinese-arabic-and-hindi-domain-names-go-sale-finally">non-Latin domain names are more important than more gTLDs</a>. </li><li>Information Today <a href="http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbReader.asp?ArticleId=49783">analyzes the possible pitfalls of the new gTLD system</a> </li><li>Intellectual Property Watch <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1126">questions the <span class="caps">ICANN</span>’s vague policies of morality rejections for new gTLDs</a> and <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1110">warns about the risks of cybersquatting and user confusion</a>. </li><li>InformationWeek has concerns about <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/06/no_one_gets_fir.html">what happens if a gTLD manager fails</a>. </li><li>Names@Work takes a look at the <a href="http://www.namesatwork.com/blog/2008/07/07/speed-dating-the-new-gtld-registry-operators-part-1">new gTLD registry providers</a>, those companies that will be maintaining the registrations for new gTLDs</li></ul>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-47030548982126064262008-09-19T16:26:00.003-04:002008-09-21T00:17:23.237-04:00Google Launches Highly Anticipated Chrome Browser; the Tech Community Reacts<span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >by <a href="mailto:skinnesb@umich.edu">Sara Skinner</a>, MTTLR Associate editor</span><br /><br />Google launched a beta version of its new Chrome web browser on September 2<span style="font-size:78%;">nd</span>. Prior to launch, Google released a <a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html">comic book</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN1sym" name="skinN1anc"></a> depicting the various engineering and design decisions that went into the browser. The result of all these innovations, Google claims, is a safer, smarter, faster way to surf the internet - but industry members and community watchdogs are raising security and privacy concerns.<br /><br />One issue that plagues virtually all beta-version software is security problems that don’t emerge until the software is disseminated to a large number of users. The comic documents Google's efforts to eliminate as many security flaws as possible before launch by employing a “Chrome bot” to automatically test the browser more thoroughly. Google has also responded swiftly to address the emerging issues after launch, and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10035004-83.html">released their first security update within a few days after the initial launch (although they were not forthcoming about which issues the update had addressed.)</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN2sym" name="skinN2anc"></a><br /><br />One major source of concern for privacy advocates is the browser’s Omnibox, a multi-purpose search box/URL input field. The Omnibox helps users fine-tune their search and browse experience, but it also constantly sends information about users’ surfing and searching habits back to Google’s headquarters. About two percent of data sent back will be stored with the IP address of the computer that sent it. Users can avoid this by surfing <a href="http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=95464&hl=en">Incognito</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN3sym" name="skinN3anc"></a> (a privacy mode that turns off cookie storage) or by disabling the auto-suggest feature, but <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10032047-56.html">privacy advocates are worried about the amount of personal information being handled by Google</a> — which the average user may not even realize is being collected.<a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN4sym" name="skinN4anc"></a><br /><br />The Terms of Service for the new browser have not been without controversy, either. When initially launched, Chrome’s terms granted Google <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html">extensive rights</a> to user content.<a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN5sym" name="skinN5anc"></a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7597699.stm">Google acknowledged</a> that such restrictive terms were part of a standard boilerplate and shouldn’t have been included.<a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN6sym" name="skinN6anc"></a> The <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?hl=en">Terms of Service</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN7sym" name="skinN7anc"></a> have since been revised and no longer grant user content rights to Google.<br /><br />Some of the loudest opposition to the Chrome browser’s privacy practices is coming from privacy advocates in Europe where a user’s IP address is considered personal data. While Google has <a href="http://64.233.179.110/blog_resources/google_ogb_article29_response.pdf">responded</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN8sym" name="skinN8anc"></a> that its privacy data retention is governed by US law, it agreed to <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/google-cuts-server-log-retention-nine-months">shorten its search bar IP retention policy to nine months</a>.<a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN9sym" name="skinN9anc"></a> It is also working on a way to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090802472.html?hpid=topnews">anonymize IP addresses</a><a class="skinNanc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN10sym" name="skinN10anc"></a> and cookies when users search in the Google Omnibox.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKtjBZV3tGEpTBsbky9g0DIP8fhhN98t7ou6tk4arLc0DD0Kq2icvmfXrtj08kkjgZxiTAWQWG_zOOIGpPGzNjeMlwpAsIAftp9YGu3iFh14ab_9tGiH52K4zkbMJDxzE2kBO0t6cSxZg/s1600-h/Skinner-short-ChromeBrowser_html_m70e3a5e.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKtjBZV3tGEpTBsbky9g0DIP8fhhN98t7ou6tk4arLc0DD0Kq2icvmfXrtj08kkjgZxiTAWQWG_zOOIGpPGzNjeMlwpAsIAftp9YGu3iFh14ab_9tGiH52K4zkbMJDxzE2kBO0t6cSxZg/s400/Skinner-short-ChromeBrowser_html_m70e3a5e.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5248318419286074274" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Screen shot from September 14, 2008 (http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_02.html).</span><br /></div><br /><hr /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN1anc" name="skinN1sym"><strong></strong></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sources:</span><br />Scott McCloud & The Google Chrome Team, <i><a href="http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html"><i>Google Chrome</i></a></i>, Google, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN2anc" name="skinN2sym"><strong></strong></a>Stephen Shankland, <i><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10035004-83.html"><i>Google Fixes Chrome Vulnerabilities—But Won’t Say Which</i></a></i>, Cnet News, Sept. 8, 2008.<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN3anc" name="skinN3sym"><strong></strong></a><i><a href="http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=95464&hl=en"><i>Explore Google Chrome Features: Incognito Mode</i></a></i>, Google Chrome Help Center, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN4anc" name="skinN4sym"><strong></strong></a>Ina Fried, <i><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10032047-56.html"><i>EFF: We’re Concerned About Google’s Omnibox</i></a></i>, Cnet News, Sept. 3, 2008.<br />Ina Fried, <i><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html"><i>Be Sure to Read Chrome’s Fine Print</i></a></i>, Cnet News, Sept. 2, 2008.<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN6anc" name="skinN6sym"><strong></strong></a><i><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7597699.stm"><i>Google Tweaks Chrome License Text</i></a></i>, BBC News, Sept. 4, 2008.<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN7anc" name="skinN7sym"><strong></strong></a>Google, <i><a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?hl=en"><i>Google Chrome Terms of Service</i></a></i>, Google, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN8anc" name="skinN8sym"><strong></strong></a>Peter Fleischer, <i><a href="http://64.233.179.110/blog_resources/google_ogb_article29_response.pdf"><i>Response to the Article 29 Working Party Opinion on Data Protection Issues Related to Search Engines</i></a></i>, Google, Sept. 8, 2008.<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN9anc" name="skinN9sym"><strong></strong></a>Kurt Opsahl, <i><a href="http://www.eff.org/blog-categories/commentary"><i>Google Cuts IP Retention to Nine Months</i></a></i>, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sept. 9, 2008, (last visited September 14, 2008).<br /><a class="skinNsym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2707677879553737512#skinN10anc" name="skinN10sym"><strong></strong></a>Ellen Nakashima, <i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090802472.html?hpid=topnews"><i>Google Promises Privacy Fixes in Its Chrome Browser</i></a></i>, The Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2008.</span>MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.com0