Dale Dietrich
on DaleDietrich.com
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Category — Cases

Warner/RIAA vs. The John Does Trial to Start May 19

Categories: BigMedia v. P2P UsersCases

"At the heart of the RIAA litigation process is the ex parte discovery orders obtained by the RIAA in virtually secret 'lawsuits' against a large number of "John Does". These cases are brought for the sole purpose of obtaining the names and addresses of the defendants. Once the information is obtained, the RIAA discontinues the cases, and then sues the people in separate lawsuits."

Sources: Recording Industry vs. The People | Digital Music News

 

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

First Beijing P2P Infringement Case Heads To Court

Categories: BigMedia v P2P ProvidersCases

Beijing Secondary People’s Court has begun to hear a lawsuit filed by Shanghai Busheng Music and Culture Company against Beijing Feixingwang Music Software Development Company, who is accused of software copyright infringement.

Sources: China Tech News

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Elektra v. Barker: The Most Important RIAA Case in the Country?

Categories: BigMedia v. P2P UsersCases

In response to Barker's Motion to dismiss, the RIAA has responded by claiming that "merely having a 'shared files folder' on one's computer, and thereby 'making files available for distribution', is in and of itself a "distribution" and a copyright infringement. I.e., even if the recordings were legally obtained, and even if no illegal copies were ever made of them, the defendant is still guilty of copyright infringement." The MPAA followed with an amicus brief in support of the RIAA. The EFF and others filed an amicus brief in opposition stating that the RIAA's argument is absurd because the entire Internet is nothing more than a giant network of hyperlinks making files available for distribution.

Sources: Recording Industry v. The People | P2PNet | ars technica

Related Posts:

 

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

TiVo Case Against EchoStar Headed to Jury

Categories: CasesPatents

The Jury in the TiVo trial is expected to commence deliberations today after opposing lawyers give closing arguments and Judge Folsom gives his final charge to the jury. It is unclear whether they will deliberate at all on Friday (perhaps for a half day as Texas state departments and agencies work a half day on Good Friday). Judge Folsom denied both parties’ last-minute motions for matter-of-law judgments this morning. No settlement has been reported.

Sources: Marshall News Messenger (AP) | San Jose Mercury News (AP) | Grand Forks Herold (AP) | Team 4 News | The Ledger (AP) | Pierceland Herald | Wall St. Journal (Subscription)

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY NINE: TiVo-EchoStar Trial – Final Day of Testimony (Tues Apr. 11)

Categories: CasesPatents

The April 12 Marshall News Messenger account of the trial (upon which I am wholly reliant) largely presents a recap of some of earlier testimony. However, it does contain a few new testimony details.

Jim Barton returned to the stand to rebut allegations made by EchoStar’s witnesses claims that “trick play” technology elements existed in products prior to TiVo’s May 15, 2001 patent grant. Barton also refuted Ergen’s prior testimony: (i) that the only technology TiVo had to offer was a feature that tracked viewing habits of users; (ii) that these features invaded users privacy; and (iii) that TiVo wanted to sell that information to advertisers and split the proceeds with Echostar. [Dale's Note: This earlier Ergen testimony was not previously reported as far as I know]. Barton testified that this was not true, that as users of TiVo they did not want their privacy violated either, that TiVo’s method of aggregating data in no way personally identified individual users and that the the FTC gave TiVo a clean bill of health saying it obeyed the letter and spirit of all privacy laws. On cross-examination Echostar’s lawyer attempted to refute Barton’s claims that TiVo created a cost-effective DVR by pointing out TiVo’s boiler-plate language in its Jan 31, 2004 10-K where it said: “Consumers may not be willing to pay for our products and services since they are already paying monthly fees for cable and satellite connections.” [Dale's Note: What this gets Echostar I don't understand - this statement was nothing more than a typical boilerplate statement, the likes of which are made in every public company's SEC filings.]

TiVo also called Professor Jim Storer of Brandeise University as a patent ‘validity’ expert to counter Echostar’s ‘invalidity’ expert, Dr. Nathaniel Polish. The essence of Polish’s earlier testimony was that some 50 DVR-related “prior art” patents pre-existed TiVo’s patent, thereby nullifying TiVo’s patent claims. Storer testified that Tivo’s patent is “absolutely” valid: “This is pioneering technology … [s]ure, all these bits and pieces – that were very expensive – existed before, but I have seen no prior system that does all these steps …”. The prior patents dealt with “little pieces of technology … in incremental steps … [t]here’s a big difference between these and the gigantic leap of putting all of them together as is done in the Barton patent”.

Both sides rested their case Tuesday. Judge Folsom is using today (Wednesday) to rule on various issues and to prepare his charge to the jury. He advised the jury to bring a sack lunch on Thursday to start their deliberations.

Sources: Marshal News Messenger

Note: This story is being discussed in this TiVo Community thread.

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY EIGHT: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Monday Apr. 10)

Categories: CasesPatents

Echostar’s CEO, Charles Ergen, took the stand. Tivo’s lawyer, Sam Baxter, established that Ergen’s ownership in Echostar translates to $7.5 billion. [Dale's Note: Can you hear "David & Goliath in the back of your head?] In an attempt to discredit Echostar’s early claims that TiVo was bringing this case only because it was a loosing money, Baxter asked Ergen if this was fair. He pointed out that Echostar had lost $3.9 billion before it turned a profit. Ergen conceded that losses are to be expected when a company has to do a lot of R&D and customer education. When asked again if this was fair Ergen responded “I’ve seen a lot of criticism (of TiVo) from Wall Street, but I can’t say if it is fair.” When asked if profitability and criticism gives somebody the right to take someone’s IP, Ergen responded “no”, adding he and his company respected others inventions. Baxter attempted to get Ergen to agree that DVR is indispensable to Echostar’s customer retention but Ergen would not directly answer the question when asked several different ways. Baxter net referred to early Echostar comparative advertising copy which read “for people who think the idea behind TiVo is cool, but the price isn’t”. Baxter pointed out how TiVo is a verb and that sportscasters say things like “I wish I had TiVo’d that moment”. He asked Ergen if he had ever heard anyone say “I wish I’d 501′d that moment”. Ergen agreed he had never heard that. Ergen testified that Echostar had no need to steal TiVo technology since it employs its own staff of “the best engineering experts in the world’). [Dale's Note: Whether patented technology is independently developed has no bearing whatever on whether it infringes on someone else's patent claims - innocent infringement is just as much infringement as willful infringement.]

Echostar’s last witness was Dr. Nathaniel Polish, an inventor of DVR products. He testified that TiVo’s technology was nothing new and that more than 50 DVR-related patents had been granted before TiVo obtained one for its media switch. Among inventions that preceded TiVo’s was the Screamin’ Streamer, an EchoStar product, and the MRx1. On cross-examination Polish acknowledged that the Screamin’ Streamer was only used in-house and never marketed commercially and admitted that the MRx1 was not capable of recording and playing live TV simultaneously. Tivo’s attorney quipped, if the MRX1 was such a good product, “one wonders why they threw it out the door shortly after…” Media Four was purchased by Echostar.

Echostar rested its case and testimony is expected to be completed today (Tuesday the 11th). Judge Folsom told the jury they will have Wednesday off as he prepares his final instructions. As Friday is a holiday for some, the judge left it for the jurors to decide if they wish to deliberate Friday or not.

FYI… the following was posted by MTChamp on the Motley Fool subscription only board:

For those who use PACER, you may have already read some notices by Echostar in response to the courts rulings against Echostar, that testimony by EchoStar’s expert validity expert, Dr. Polish, was not allowed. He was going to argue prior art.

The other notice has to do with a couple of documents or exhibits Echostar wanted to show the jury from the Patent Trade Office as I understand it, to show that TiVo’s patent is being re-examined for validity. I guess the PTO is making sure there was no prior art that would invalidate the TiVo patent. I don’t know the details of why the PTO would do this, however the court would not allow Echostar to talk about it.

TiVo also filed a brief regarding EchoStar’s objections to some demonstatives of a possible prior art invention called Media Streamer. Echostar objected to some slides that TiVo was to show that illustrate how this Media Streamer device could not record a program while watching it and could not store and extract video at the same time. I guess the labeling wasn’t to the courts liking so TiVo has reworded these demonstratives with the language contained in a supplemental claim construction order made in March 2006.

Sources: Marshal News Messenger  |  Motley Fool (Subscription)

Note: This story is being discussed in this TiVo Community thread.

" title="Digg this story">Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

StreamCast to Slug it Out Against the MPAA/RIAA in the Courts After All

Categories: BigMedia v P2P ProvidersCases

After previously stating it was going to settle its dispute with the RIAA and MPAA, Sreamcast, which is responsible for the file-sharing program Morpheus, has done an about face and is going to take its chances with a jury trial. Lower courts have been kinder to P2P litigants than was the Supreme Court which held Grokster liable for “promoting” and “encouraging” infringement by the users. As with Torrentspy’s decision to fight the MPAA last week, Streamcast will argue that it neither promotes nor encourages infringement by its users and is therefore not responsible for any copyright infringement by its users.

Sources: ars technica | Boston Herald | Business Week | MP3.com | commercialappeal.com | L.A. Times

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY SEVEN: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Friday Apr. 7)

Categories: CasesPatents

- Text of “Multi-Media Time Warping Patent” in Dispute
- Claim Construction Order (August 18, 2005)
Echostar called Stanford Professor Margaret “Maggie” Johnson to refute testimony by TiVo’s witness Dr. Jerry Gibson. By analogy to writing novels she testified that TiVo and Echostar used different approaches to writing software to achieve the same end. [Dale's Note: Frankly, I don't understand the point or substance of this testimony - based on the account in the article linked below!]. Moving on … TiVo next cross-examined Dr. Tom Rhyne. TiVo attempted to discredit Dr. Rhyne by painting him as an expert-for-hire. As Echostar had earlier done with a TiVo expert, Tivo’s lawyers ensured that the court learned that Mr. Rhyne was being paid $495 per hour as an expert witness. Rhyne acknowledged that TiVo inventor Jim Barton “knows more about DVRs” than he. Both Rhyne and Johnson acknowledged that they relied on what they were told by Echostar engineers as the basis for their testimony [Dale's Note: Frankly, I don't understand the point or substance of this testimony - based on the account in the article linked to this story! Please review it yourself to see if you can make heads-or-tails of it.] The last Echostar witness to testify Friday was Dan Landreth, Echostar’s V.P. of Engineering. He testified that in 1997 he and others from his prior company, Media Four, made a “sales pitch” to Echostar about their MRX1 “media stream receiver” invention which he claimed had “time-shifting” capabilities. He demonstrated the MRX1 to the jury. Landreth said that Echostar subsequently purchased Media Four and all of its I.P. Under cross-examination Landreth said that Echostar abandoned the MRX1 and a patent that had been pending for it at the time of the merger. Chu said that in order for a consumer to have a functioning MRX1 receiver it would have cost almost $5,000. [Dale's Note: The article does not indicate whether Landreth agreed with this.] Landreth, however, showed the jury a copy of a check for one of the first sales of the MRX1 receiver in the amount of $60,000. Landreth also admitted that at the time of the buy-out, Media Four’s sales had “dropped to zero.”

Sources: Marshal News Messenger

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

TiVo Requests Curative Instructions Re: Improper Claim Construction Testimony

Categories: CasesPatents

- Claim Construction Order (August 18, 2005)
The terms “converts” and “object” were defined by the court in the August 18, 2005 Claim Construction Order. TiVo alleges that Echostar is re-arguing the definitions that the court previously determined for use in this case. TiVo alleges that “EchoStar’s deliberate use of claim construction that was not adopted by the Court is a very serious matter and requests, at a minimum, that the Court provide the jury with a limiting instruction on this issue”. TiVo is asking the court to instruct the jury to disregard testimony that conflicts with the Claim Construction Order.

Sources:
‘ChuckyBox’ on TiVoCommunity Forum  |  NewsJournal.com

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY SIX: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Thursday Apr. 6)

Categories: CasesPatents

- Text of “Multi-Media Time Warping Patent” in Dispute
- Claim Construction Order (August 18, 2005)
Echostar called three witnesses. First up, Tom Rhyne, TiVo’s Expert witness – a retired electrical engineering professor from Texas A&M. Rhyne testified that while there were some similarities between TiVo’s patents and Echostar’s products, there were a number of ways the Echostar box differed from the functions outlined in TiVo’s patent. Ryan, [Dale's note: stating the obvious], said EchoStar boxes do not convert analog signals into MPEG streams. He pointed out that Echostar’s boxes do not separate audio and video components, as do TiVo products [Dale's note, since Echostar's product is an all-digital end-to-end, why would it?] and therefore do not reassemble them as the TiVo patent claims [Dale's note, the unstated premise being that this is all the TiVo patent claims]. Since MPEG is already in digital format, there is no need to do the two-step conversation as is needed on TiVo boxes that use analogue inputs. Rhyne said EchoStar products do not have/use a media switch as TiVo alleges.

Next up, Dan Minnick, vice president of software for EchoStar. Minnick also testified that there was no media switch. He also testified that after Echostar’s engineers met with TiVo’s engineers “early on”, they followed-up with Echostar’s inhouse counsel, Kerry Miller and that Miller gave them a verbal legal opinion over the telephone that Echostar did not infringe TiVo’s patent [Dale's note: I wonder if Miller rues the day he gave that opinion?] Minnick said “We know we don’t have a media switch because we broadcast in MPEG, we have no need for software that will convert (television signals) to MPEG. [Dale's Note: Interesting how they are narrowly defining the scope of the patented media switch with this testimony.]. Minnick explained that an in-house e-mail from an EchoStar engineer on the day TiVo’s patent was announced saying “Oh no, tell me it isn’t so?” was a sarcastic e-mail mimicking a clay cartoon character.

Finally, Jason Demas a senior Broadcom director testified that Echostar chose to source a DVR chip from Broadcom whereas TiVo, after being approached by Broadcom to do this on a chip, opted to use software instead. On cross-examination, Demas conceded that Echostar’s boxes are capable of the same “trick play’ features of pausing, re-winding and fast-forwarding live television as outlined in the Barton patent. Demas was not aware, as TiVo’s lawyer put it, that “Echostar has demanded — if they lose this trial — that Broadcom will pay for all the damages this jury may award”.

Tom Rhyne will be cross-examined Friday April 7.

Sources: Marshal News Messenger

Dale’s Comment: It appears that EchoStar’s strategy here is to pick away at the various TiVo patent claims and to argue that because they don’t infringe claim a, b or c, that they don’t infringe the patent. TiVo only needs to convince the jury that Echostar infringed ANY claim, not every claim to succeed. Rhyn’s point that there are a number of ways in which Echostar’s products differ from TiVo’s patent, it seems to me, is beside the point. What is relevant is the way in which Echostar’s products incorporate technologies claimed in TiVo’s patent – not in the relevant or irrelevant ways in which it is different.

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY FIVE: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Wed Apr. 5)

Categories: CasesPatents

Echostar first made routine motions for dismissal (arguing Echostar’s use of non-infringing alternative technology) that were rejected by Judge Folsom. Echostar called its first witness, Dave Kummer, VP of Engineering and Technology. His testimony revolved around the development of EchoStar’s 7100 and 7200 set-top boxes that had a pause feature before PVRs existed. He testified that other features such as rewind, fast-forward and record were added to the 7200 model in December of 1999. He testified that when Barton approached Echostar in 2001 or 2002 about building a set-top box for Echostar, the company already had its own. After meeting with Barton, he says, Echostar determined that its customers did not need the extra features that TiVo was building for DirecTV. TiVo’s attorney Morgan Chu, in his remarks on cross-examination pointed out that “the key is the media switch … and there is a Barton media switch in every one of EchoStar’s products”. “We agree they built their own boxes, but we disagree that they own their own technology”.

Sources: Marshal News Messenger | NewsJournal.com

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY FOUR: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Tues Apr. 4)

Categories: CasesPatents

Keith Ugone, an economist, testified that EchoStar caused damages totaling $87 million by selling 4.3 million DVRs that infringe TiVo’s patent. Ugone (factoring in competitive sales) conservatively estimated TiVo would have sold 192,700 more PVRs had Echostar not sold these units representing a loss of $34 million. Estimating a loss of $1.00 per month (the royalty rate paid by DirecTV) for each of the 4.1 million remaining Echostar subscribers, TiVo claims further lost royalties in the amount of $52.95 million. Echostar attorney Harold McElhinny challenged Ugone’s calculations based on the “market penetration rates method”, suggesting that Ugone used this method because he did not have the information needed to calculate damages another (presumably more appropriate) way. On re-direct, Ugone stated that this method was commonly used by economists. When McElhinny pointed out that Echostar had used similar technology as early as 1999 in its Dish-player TV, Ugone pointed out that those products used only ‘primitive’ DVR functionality . When asked, Ugone testified that his fee to TiVo for testifying is $425 per hour and that he will receive about $500,000 for his work on the trial. Stuart West, TiVo’s VP of finance testified that TiVo spent $193 million on research and development. TiVo expects to conclude its opening testimony on Wednesday.

Source: Marshal News Messenger

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Netflix Sues Blockbuster to Shut Online Service

Categories: CasesNew Business ModelsPatents

- Text of Netflix’s Complaint (including patents)
- Netflix’s New Patent 7,024,381 (’381′) (April 4, 2006)
- Netflix’s Patent 6,584,450 (’450′) (June 24, 2003)
On the heals of being granted its new “Approach for Renting Items to Customers” business model patent ’381, Netflix has sued rival Blockbuster for patent infringement, seeking to shut down Blockbuster’s 18-month-old online rental service and award Netflix damages. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, alleges that Blockbuster infringed Netflix’s ’381 patent by “copying Netflix’s patented business method, including but not limited to copying Netflix’s dynamic queue; copying Netflix’s method of sending DVDs to subscribers based on ranked order of titles in their queue; and copying Netflix’s method of allowing subscribers to update and reorder their queue”. Netflix alleges that Blockbuster knew of the pending patent application, but “willfully and deliberately” launched an infringing service anyway.

The ’381 patent is a continuation of, and claims benefits of, the Netflix’s earlier patent ’450. The abstracts for each of the (i) new ‘Approach for Renting Items to Customers” patent ’381′ and (ii) ‘Method and Apparatus for Renting Items’ patent ’450, granted earlier on June 24, 2003; are the same, and both read as follows:

According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A “Max Out” approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A “Max Turns” approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The “Max Out” and “Max Turns” approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

And, FYI, here is the abstract of Netflix’s earlier “Mailing and Response Envelope” patent no. 6,966,484 granted on November 22, 2005:

A mailing and response envelope for conveying an item from a sender to a recipient and back is disclosed. The envelope comprises a base panel, a sender address panel, and a recipient address panel. The sender address panel is affixed to the base panel by an adhesive region. The sender address panel and adhesive region define a pocket sized to accept an item. The adhesive region extends laterally on the base panel in an amount selected to ensure that a postal cancellation is not applied to an area overlying the item. The recipient address panel is joined to the base panel by a detachable joint. In this configuration, a fragile item may be conveyed from the sender to the recipient and from the recipient back to the sender without damage to the item.

Sources: CNet | ars technica | MSNBC | Reuters | CNN | Red Herring | Hollywood Reporter | CNN Money | Chron | USA Today | San Jose Mercury News | SF Engadget | SF Examiner | SF Gate | Business Week | Blockbuster Press Release

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Music Industry Releases New Wave of Lawsuits

Categories: BigMedia v. P2P UsersCases

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is launching nearly 2,000 new legal actions against individuals accused of sharing copyrighted music over P2P services, including FastTrack (Kazaa), Gnutella (BearShare), eDonkey, DirectConnect, BitTorrent, Limewire, WinMX, and SoulSeek. Here we go again.

Sources:
ars technica  |  Red Herring  |  CNet  |  ZDNet  |  BBC  |  silicon.com  |  The Register  |  PCWorld  |  Fox News  |  PC Pro  |  Reuters  |  PC Magazine  |  Top Tech News  |  ifpi press release
 
Dale’s Comment: Oh Goody! And we’ve seen how successful the RIAA’s suing thousands of its customers has worked over on this side of the pond now haven’t we?

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY THREE: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Fri Mar 31)

Categories: CasesPatents

Professor Gibson continued his testimony. He compared six EchoStar PVRs and believed they all contained infringing “trick play” functionality covered by TiVo’s patent, including replaying live broadcasts in slow motion, recording of the current live programming, fast-forwarding, freeze-framing, pausing and re-starting live broadcasts. After cross, EchoStar’s counsel, Rachel Evans asked the judge to strike Gibson’s testimony arguing that he is not an expert computer programmer/researcher as is Echostar’s upcoming expert witness. Gibson countered that he has written software since he was 18 and reviewed student software as a professor. The judge refused to strike his testimony ruling that Gibson was indeed an expert. There will be no proceedings on Monday. The trial continues on Tuesday. Thanks to the Marshal News Messenger for continued daily coverage!

Sources: Marshal News Messenger  |  San Jose Mercury News  |  Hollywood Reporter  |  Chron.com

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY TWO: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Thurs Mar 30)

Categories: CasesPatents

Former electrical engineering professor Jerry Gibson testified that on his analysis of the two boxes, the Echostar box used 11 technologies claimed in TiVo’s patent. He demonstrated how the Time Warp patent works by showing a Dallas Cowboys touchdown (talk about playing to his audience! smiley face) He testified about the TiVo media switch at the heart of the patent. Judge Folsom told the jury they could find infringement even if Echostar did not directly copy the TiVo technology. Lead inventor Barton described how he took a prototype to Echostar early on. He left the prototype with promises it would be returned the next day. It never was. Barton also testified about later sessions where the box was opened and TiVo explained to EchoStar engineers how the technology worked.

Source: Marshal News Messenger  |  Oxford Press

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

DAY ONE: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Wed Mar 29)

Categories: CasesPatents

Local Paper Describes Day 1 of the TiVo-Echostar trial. Testimony, procedural matters, boxes of documents and standing room only. In opening statements Echostar attorney Harold J. McElhinny said TiVo planned to ask for at least $100 million in damages. Echostar has filed a countersuit scheduled for trial next year.

Sources: Marshal News Messenger 1  |  Marshal News Messenger 2  |  Marshal News Messenger 3

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

TiVo, EchoStar Head to Court

Categories: CasesPatents

- Text of “Multi-Media Time Warping Patent” in Dispute
- One Paragraph Summary of TiVo’s Complaint
TiVo and EchoStar Communications headed to a Texas courtroom Wednesday to argue over TiVo’s claim that EchoStar’s Dish Network infringed on TiVo’s patent on a “multimedia time-warping system,” the time-shifting technology inside the digital video recorder maker’s set-top boxes. It will be a jury trial. EchoStar’s countersuit is not scheduled for trial until next year.

Sources: Red Herring | San Francisco Chronicle | ars technica | Seattle Post Intelligencer | Business Week | Forbes | Fox | USA Today | Washington Post | Examiner | CNet | Reuters | L.A. Times | Yahoo! Finance
Related Posts:


Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Torrentspy Fights Back Against MPAA in Motion to Dismiss

Categories: BigMedia v P2P ProvidersCases

Text of Motion to Dismiss
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster clearly found Grokster to be contributorily liable for inducing its users to directly infringe the copyright in content shared through the Grokster peer-to-peer file sharing network, on the basis that it took “affirmative steps” to induce such infringement. Absent affirmative steps to induce copyright infringement, Grokster arguably would not have been liable. Since that decision was handed down, the entertainment industry has attempted to expand what the decision actually said in arguing, without foundation, that file sharing and torrent tracking sites were, per se, illegal on the basis of the Grokster decision. The Supreme Court did not make that ruling. This is the argument Torrentspy is aptly making in its Motion to Dismiss at lines 18 to 20:

There are no facts showing a “clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement” on the parts of defendants. (Grokster, at 125 S.Ct. 2770.)

Sources: BBC | PC World Australia | Techdirt | The Register | The Inquirer | MacWorld | Playfuls | Afterdawn.com | EarthTimes.org | Torrentspy Press Release | LinuxWorld.com.au | ITNews.com.au | WebProNews | Slyck | PC Advisor

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

RIAA Motion to Compel Hard Drive Inspection Denied – Neutral Inspector Appointed

Categories: BigMedia v. P2P UsersCases

"…[W]here the RIAA made a motion to compel complete access to Tanya Andersen's computer to make a "mirror image" of her hard drive, federal judge Donald Ashmanskas declined to allow that, and instead granted Ms. Andersen's request to appoint a neutral expert who would be given a specific list of files and an identified protocol to review her computer."

Source: Recording Industry vs. The People | P2PNet

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

TiVo Against the Giants

Categories: BigMedia v NewTechCasesDigital TVPatents

Law.com interviews TiVo’s general Counsel, Matt Zinn, on the forthcoming TiVo v. EchoStar Trial, defending other patent suits and generally how he rolls with TiVo’s legal punches.

Source: Law.com

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Class Action Lawyer Sues Record Labels

Categories: AntitrustCases

San Diego lawyer William Lerach’s suit says that Sony BMG, Universal Music, Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and EMI fought together to keep the online music market from emerging, and then “conspired to fix and maintain” music prices once services like Apple’s highly successful iTunes became inevitable.

Sources: Red Herring | Mac World | Cathy Kirkman

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Hollywood Hails eDonkey P2P Shutdown

Categories: BigMedia v P2P ProvidersCasesPolice Actions

Swiss and Belgian police have shut down a major component of the eDonkey file-sharing network, used mainly to trade copies of copyrighted movies and music.

Sources:
ZDNet | MSNBC | The Register | Reuters | Inquirer | MP3.com | CD Freaks | TG Daily | PC Pro | ITWorld | afterdawn.com

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

Kazaa, Record Company Lawyers Ready for Australian Appeal

Categories: BigMedia v P2P ProvidersCases

The appeal follows the September 5, 2005 judgment, which was dubbed a “landmark” decision by both sides. The judgment guaranteed the continued operation of Kazaa, while the record companies saw the decision as striking at the heart of internet piracy. At the time, the record companies reportedly said they would not be appealing the decision.

Sources: The Register | Slyck | Smarthouse | MP3.com | P2PNet

Related Posts:

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off 

French Court Dismisses P2P File Sharing Case

Categories: BigMedia v. P2P UsersCases


A French court has dismissed a lawsuit against an alleged file sharer for both downloading and uploading.

Source: Michael Geist | ars technica

Digg! Digg Del.icio.us Comments Off