“Chinese apples” is an English term for pomegranate.
Software companies, and those companies that develop proprietary software for their internal use, should carefully note lessons coming out of the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision in Airframe Systems, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Corp., No. 10-2001 (1st Cir. September 14, 2011).
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has confirmed that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a “safe harbor” for service providers who expeditiously take down allegedly infringing content when they receive written notice from copyright owners.
The Google Book Search litigation and pending settlement has been increasingly in the news as the date of the court’s fairness hearing draws near.
Copyright law has always provided a balance between the proprietary rights of copyright owners and freedom of speech.
A squabble among model railroad enthusiasts has derailed some assumptions about the enforceability of “open source” licenses, generating a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that could expose users of free software to claims of copyright infringement.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued a decision upholding and illustrating the liberal standard for qualifying experts under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The validity of retroactive licenses and transfers of copyright has been thrown into question by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued in late 2007.
Recently, a report commissioned by the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress recommended legislative changes that could significantly affect the liabilities of libraries, archives and museums for copyright infringing activities, and the rights and interests of copyright owners.
In one of the few published cases dealing with New Jersey’s Computer Related Offenses Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:38A-1 et seq. (“CROA”), Fairway Dodge, Inc. v. Decker Dodge, Inc. (App. Div. June 12, 2006), New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a verdict against two employees who gained unauthorized access to their employer’s computer system and transferred confidential customer information to their new employer and a verdict against the employees’ new company because it found the employees were acting as its agents.