By Lena Mualla *

Google implemented its new privacy policy on March 1, 2012, resulting in calls for increased transparency to safeguard the increased access to user information under the policy.  The plan allows Google to consolidate user information across its roughly 60 services (notably, YouTube, Android, Google search engine, Google Maps, and Gmail).  Google painted this change as pro-user, since the consolidation would make it easier for a user to work across various services; Google analogized this to a user’s already existing ability to bring a document from Google Docs and share it with someone over Gmail.  The privacy policy, Google touts, would be a mere extension of that principle.

The European Union, led by France on this matter, is not convinced that this is a harmless update in policy.  France’s privacy agency, the National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties (CNIL), raised questions to Google in the form of a questionnaire and cited its major concern, based on a preliminary investigation, that user information was not being used properly. Continue reading »

By Tierryicah Mitchell *

Smartphones have worked wonders in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. People are now more connected than ever and have the capability of accessing the web and their e-mail at any given time.  Hundreds of thousands of applications, or apps, are available for the purpose of sheer entertainment, while some apps are more informative.

Some apps, however, serve a different purpose.  These apps are capable of determining the real-world location (like restaurants and stores) of a person and relaying it to others.  These apps are called geolocator applications.  One of the more popular geolocator apps is Foursquare, which allows people to report their locations in exchange for prizes and discounts.  While these apps seem relatively harmless, they may also serve a more sinister purpose.  Earlier this year, SMS Services unveiled a new geolocator app, Girls Around Me, which allows the user to identify girls who have checked into places near the user’s location using publicly available data from Facebook and Foursquare.  Additionally, the app allows the user to access that person’s Facebook account and directly send Facebook messages to the girls.  Due to the controversial nature of the app, Foursquare has banned the app’s use of its information and iTunes has removed the app from its store. Continue reading »

By Joseph Norman *

‘Win while the world is watching’ is Nike’s objective for success in sports marketing.  Last week, Gary Way, general counsel of Nike Global Sports Marketing, let a group of Wake Forest law students in on the strategy.  The objective is to have the world’s best athletes wear Nike while they are performing on the world’s biggest stage.  For example, when Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams face off in the Wimbledon finals.  Or when a popular quarterback is traded from the Broncos to the Jets.  It seems that Nike follows this same strategy when enforcing its IP licensing rights. Continue reading »

By Rob Abb *

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived lawsuits by Viacom Inc. and the English Premier League over the use of copyrighted videos that were appearing on YouTube without Viacom’s permission.  The Court sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether Google and YouTube “purposefully ignored the infringing material that was posted on the site.”  Although the Court did not rule against YouTube, it does require YouTube to defend itself in the lower court and show that it did not have prior knowledge that users were uploading copyrighted materials on its site.

In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube to stop users from uploading and viewing copyrighted materials owned by Viacom.  In its complaint, Viacom alleged that Google had engaged in “brazen” copyright infringement and that over “150,000 unauthorized clips of [Viacom’s] copyrighted programming” appeared on YouTube and had “been viewed an astounding 1.5 billion times.”  The complaint went on to allege that YouTube “engage[d] in, promote[d] and induce[d]” the infringement. Continue reading »

By Jason Weber *

The Cold War may have ended decades ago, but the arms race has just begun.  However, this is not a race between the United States and Russia to amass the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.  It is a race between major tech companies to amass the largest stockpile of patents in the world.  In the past year, major tech companies including Apple, Yahoo, Samsung, and Facebook have been involved in patent infringement actions.  During this same time period, these companies and others have been buying up patents like candy.

On April 9, 2012, Microsoft bought over 800 patents from AOL for almost $1.1 billion.  Back in August, Google bought Motorola Mobility and its slew of over 17,000 patents for $12.5 billion.  Before that, a group of companies, including Apple and Microsoft, beat out Google’s competing bid and bought 6,000 patents from the bankrupt Nortel Networks for $4.5 billion.  Facebook recently joined in the race when it bought about 700 patents from IBM. Continue reading »

By Pierce Haar *

Last April, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement concerning the company’s iPad and iPhone products.  Apple claimed that Samsung copied the “look and feel” of its products when it created the Galaxy line of Samsung electronics.  Last December, Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction on some of Samsung’s Galaxy models.  Judge Koh did note, however, that Apple would likely prevail on at least one of the counts of patent infringement related to the patents.  Fast forward to April 4, 2012.  On this date, Judge Koh ruled on term definitions during claim construction for the lawsuit.  Eight terms were up for consideration and Judge Koh ruled in favor of Apple on five of those eight terms.  Judge Koh decided to use two of the terms as they were presented by Samsung and use a hybrid definition for the remaining term.  Claim construction can often be a vital part of the patent litigation process, as the terms help define and frame how a judge may rule on the claims at hand.  Favorable definitions do not guarantee a victory for Apple.  However, they do make it that much easier for Apple to prevail on its claims.  When taken in context of Judge Koh’s previous statements about the validity of some of Apple’s claims, it would seem that Apple’s claim construction “victory” would signal that the odds may indeed be in Apple’s favor.  Only time will tell whether or not Apple is going to be victorious.  We may never find out, however, as there are rumors of the potential for a settlement. Continue reading »

By Sarah R. Riedl *

Mercedes-Benz has broken new advertising ground by hyping patent ownership in its E-Series television commercial.  In lieu of more traditional automobile advertisements involving high-speed maneuvering around fallen debris or demonstrations of innovative features, Mercedes-Benz has chosen to highlight the paper trail resulting from its patent collection.

The first thought that came to my mind after seeing the advertisement was “80,000 patents, that is a mountain of legal fees.”  The message, however, seems to be creating a new standard for the future of automobiles: “A legacy of innovation for all cars to follow.”  Most of the patented technologies involve high-end features including headlights adjusting for oncoming motorists and sensors to detect objects in the roadway or cars drifting into the oncoming lane. Continue reading »

By Joseph Norman *

On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed H.R. 3606: Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act into law.  The Act is largely a liberalization of securities laws with regards to small businesses seeking capital from outside investors; because of this, it has been controversial and widely discussed (see here, here, here and here).  Harvard Law professor John Coates thinks that Enron-like fraud will spring directly from the JOBS Act.  He contends: “It’s not just a possibility; I guarantee that someone will in fact do worse than Enron as a result of this bill.  There will just be outright fraud.” Continue reading »

By Tierryicah Mitchell *

That’s right.  There is trouble in the dollhouse with no hope of a truce in sight.  Barbie vs. Bratz.  Who needs professional boxing when Mattel (Barbie) and MGA (Bratz) have been duking it out in court for years with no end in sight?  However, these dolls aren’t fighting for the love of Ken, but rather over the intellectual property rights to the Bratz franchise.  More specifically, attorneys for Mattel alleged that MGA’s creation of the Bratz doll constituted trademark and copyright infringement against the Mattel Empire.

But how did all of this fighting start?  Surely, there must have been a time when Bratz and Barbie peacefully coexisted in the dollhouse.  Sadly, there was not.  Like all epic battles, the legal war between Mattel and MGA’s conflict has a beginning, or, a first shot fired.  In this case, the proverbial gun was fired by a former Mattel designer named Carter Bryant, and the proverbial first shot was Mr. Bryant’s creation of the scantily clad, edgy Bratz doll in 2001.  An article written by Margaret Talbot on New America Foundation’s website provided the following description of the Bratz doll: “Bratz dolls have large heads and skinny bodies; their almond-shaped eyes are tilted upward at the edges and adorned with thick crescents of eye shadow, and their lips are lush and pillowy, glossed to a candy-apple sheen and rimmed with dark lip liner.”  Interestingly enough, Mr. Bryant was still a designer at Mattel when he created the Bratz doll.  Perhaps this would not have ruffled Robert Eckert, who is the CEO of Mattel, the wrong way had the Bratz doll not been a such a success.  At the peak of the Bratz doll in 2006, it generated almost $1 billion in sales. Continue reading »

By Jason Weber *

There are ridiculous patents, and there are bogus patents.  Those of the ridiculous variety, such as “plumber chic pants,” the “life expectancy watch,” and the “gerbil shirt,” provide a good laugh.  Bogus or questionable patents that are overbroad, vague, or unoriginal, however, can harm the public and have a chilling effect on innovation.  An example of a bogus and overbroad patent includes a 1994 patent for the entire “interactive web.”  There are many posited reasons that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sometimes approves questionable patents, but the most often repeated reason is the vast number of patent applications filed every year and relatively small number of patent examiners employed by the USPTO to examine those patents and determine their authenticity.

Among other requirements, in order to receive a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101, the patented invention must be “new.”  To determine if an invention is actually “new,” patent examiners search for “prior art,” which is essentially any reference of any type that proves the proposed invention is not new.  This prior art can be found in another patent, a publication, or a previous similar invention that was sold, marketed, or used.  Finding prior art, however, can be extremely difficult.  Patents are dense and technical, and in order to determine if the invention is not “new,” examiners have to understand what the patent covers.  Further, prior art can come from anywhere in the world.  Because of these two issues, searching for prior art is time-consuming and expensive, and many examples of prior art can be missed by the overworked and understaffed USPTO patent examiners. Continue reading »