We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

Breathing a little easier in the cloud

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 20 2013

This month, the Second Circuit handed down its much-anticipated decision in WNET v. Aereo, Inc. To the considerable relief of public-facing cloud

India proposes onerous rules on data privacy, security, and responsibility for third-party content

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • India
  • -
  • February 12 2011

India has released draft regulations implementing parts of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 dealing with protection of personal information, data security, and responsibility of service providers for IP infringement and publication of "harmful" content

EU privacy law is no excuse for spoliation of evidence

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 24 2011

European Union requirements to delete personal data once it is “no longer necessary” for business purposes do not excuse a company from U.S. law regarding spoliation of evidence

European High Court rules that ISPs do not have to monitor user traffic for illegal downloads

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • December 3 2011

Internet service providers cannot be required to install filtering systems designed to monitor traffic on their networks for copyright-infringing material, according to a decision last month by Europe’s highest court

Ninth Circuit affirms power of software license agreements to restrict resale

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 2 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., that an eBay vendor's resale of used AutoCAD software constituted copyright infringement because the party from which he originally purchased the software was merely a "licensee" rather than an "owner."