Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Johnson v. Cypress Hill, No. 03 C 9452, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 7, 2008) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle struck defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Johnson’s copyright infringement claim. The Court previously denied summary judgment as to the other plaintiffs, Watts and Jones - click here to read the Blog's prior post about that opinion. Plaintiffs authored the song “Is It Because I’m Black” in 1968 and recorded a version of it in 1969 (the “Song”).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, including the musical group Cypress Hill (click here for some of the group’s music on their MySpace page), infringed their copyright in the Song by using parts of it in their Black Sunday album.
 

Johnson’s copyright claim is based upon a 1997 registration for a compilation of songs allegedly containing the Song. But a review of a certified copy of Johnson’s compilation from the Copyright Office proved the Song was not on the deposited compilation. Because the Song was not a part of the registered work, Johnson could not show ownership of a valid copyright. The Court, therefore, dismissed the claim.
 

The Court also held that Johnson’s failure to file a Notice of Use pursuant to the 1909 Copyright Act was irrelevant because Congress deleted the Notice of Use requirement effective January 1, 1978, before any alleged infringement occurred.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mintel Int’l. Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08 C 3939, 2008 WL 2782818 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2008) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff a limited temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in this trade secret and non-compete case. After defendant gave plaintiff his notice of resignation from plaintiff’s marketing department, plaintiff began monitoring defendant’s computer use. This monitoring allegedly showed that defendant copied, emailed or printed various pieces of confidential information, including plaintiff’s client and vendor lists. Defendant then allegedly used those documents, in violation of defendant’s employment agreements, with defendant’s new employer, plaintiff’s alleged competitor.

The Court held that plaintiff had shown at least some likelihood of success regarding its trade secret misappropriation and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims based upon the alleged copying, emailing or printing of plaintiff’s client lists and other strategic documents. The Court also held that plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of success on elements of its breach of the non-compete and employment agreement claims. But the Court noted that it appeared likely that some provisions of the agreements were not enforceable.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Heriot v. Byrne, No. 08 C 2272, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill., Jul. 21, 2008) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ copyright and related state law claims based upon forum non conveniens, Colorado River abstention, and for lack of standing. Plaintiffs alleged that they were co-owners of defendants’ copyrights in the popular books and movies associated with The Secret, a self-help program. Defendants previously filed a suit in Australia seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants owned the copyright in The Secret.

Forum Non Conveniens

The Court held that the Australian Court would not be able to resolve US copyright ownership, and, therefore, was not an adequate forum. Furthermore, much of the evidence for plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and equitable accounting claims was located in the US, as were the key witnesses. 

Colorado River Abstention

Although both suits focused on the same works, the Australian case did not include and would not resolve plaintiffs’ equitable claims for unjust enrichment and the equitable accounting. Because the Australian case would not resolve all issues in the US case, abstention was no appropriate.

Standing

The Court held that plaintiffs had standing to make its copyright claims because plaintiffs alleged copyright ownership in their complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Watts v. Cypress Hill, No. 03 C 9452 & 06 C 3348, 2008 WL 2540811 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2008) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. Defendants’ motion was based upon three arguments: 1) plaintiffs did not have a valid copyright registration; 2) plaintiffs’ suit was barred by the statute of limitations; and 3) plaintiffs failed to file a Notice of Use as required by the 1909 Copyright Act. Plaintiffs authored the song “Is It Because I’m Black” in 1968, and recorded a version of it in 1969 (the “Song”). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, including the musical group Cypress Hill (click here for some of the group’s music on their MySpace page), infringed plaintiffs’ copyright in the Song by using parts of it in their album titled Black Sunday.

Copyright Registration

Defendants argued that plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving a valid copyright registration because instead of the registration certificate or a copy of the deposited CD, plaintiffs produced a printout of the Copyright Offices’ summary of their registration. Because defendants did not dispute the information in the summary, the Court denied summary judgment. The validity of the registration was a question of fact for the jury.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Blawg Review #174 is available at D. Todd Smith's Texas Appellate Law Blog -- click here to read it.  Smith boldly went without a theme, but it is a great Review, even without a theme.  Smith picks up on my coverage of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision affirming the Northern District's holding that the NFL is a single entity for IP licensing purposes, as well as related coverage at Sports Law Blog and Blawgletter.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Moran Indus., Inc. v. Higdon, No. 07 C 6092, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill., Jul. 26, 2008) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, but dismissed plaintiff’s trademark and breach of contract case for improper venue. Defendants, various franchisees of plaintiff, were all residents of and operated their franchises in various combinations of Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee. Each relevant franchise agreement had a forum selection clause consenting to jurisdiction in the Northern District. But the Court held that the clause was permissive, allowing defendants to challenge personal jurisdiction. While defendants were not Illinois residents, their numerous contacts with plaintiff — sending plaintiff royalty payments and reports to Illinois and attending training in Illinois, among others — created personal jurisdiction.

While defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois, the Court held that the Northern District was not the proper venue. A substantial part of the harm alleged occurred not in Illinois, but in Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee. Those were the states where defendants allegedly failed to make payments, not Illinois. The Courts, therefore, dismissed the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rudnicki v. WPNA 1490 AM, No. 04 C 5719, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill., Jul. 24, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude defendants from arguing non-registration of plaintiff’s allegedly copyrighted works. Plaintiff argued that his certificate of registration was conclusive proof that his works were registered. But plaintiff only deposited six of his works with his applications. In response, plaintiff argued that deposit of a representative sample was all that was necessary for registration, and all that was necessary for statutory damages.

The Court, however, held that the mandatory registration requirement, and its exceptions pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 407, was separate from the registration–deposit requirement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 408. The registration–deposit requirement did not provide exceptions for works first published outside the United States, such as plaintiff’s works. Because § 408 required deposit for all of plaintiff’s works, and because plaintiff had not identified if any of the six works plaintiff deposited was at issue in this case, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Am. Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, No. 07-4006 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008) (Kanne, J.).*

Judge Kanne, writing for a unanimous panel, affirmed Judge Moran's opinions holding that the National Football League ("NFL") acting through its NFL Properties entity was a single entity and, therefore, dismissing plaintiff American Needle's Sherman Act antitrust claims -- click here and here to read the Blog's post on Judge Moran's prior opinions in this case.  For more than twenty years, NFL Properties licensed American Needle to use various NFL and NFL team trademarks on American Needle's headwear. American Needle filed this suit after NFL Properties entered an exclusive, ten year license with Reebok, ending American Needle’s license rights. Plaintiff argued that the NFL teams collectively, as well as in concert with Reebok, violated the antitrust laws by acting together through NFL Properties to license their collective intellectual property rights exclusively to Reebok (American Needle argued that the NFL did not violate antitrust laws when it licensed to numerous parties, including American Needle, through NFL Properties).

The Seventh Circuit explained that sports leagues are difficult to classify because they display elements of a single entity, as well as elements of a joint venture made up of independent owners.  The Seventh Circuit, therefore, determines whether a sports league is a single entity "one league at a time" and "one facet of a league at a time."  In this case, the NFL was a single entity because for the purpose of promoting its football product -- because no one team can stage a game alone.  It followed that if the NFL was a single entity for promoting football, it was also a single entity for promoting its product by selling NFL apparel.  Additionally, the Court noted that the record established that the NFL teams had been acting as a single entity for IP licensing since 1963.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc, No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group’s (“RCG”) motion for leave to use an expert witness that declaratory judgment defendant Trading Technologies (“TT”) previously met with. TT met the first prong of the test for expert disqualification. TT had established a confidential relationship with the expert, as proven by the non-disclosure (“NDA”) agreement entered into by TT and the expert. 
 

But the NDA was not enough to meet the second prong of the test, that confidential information requiring disqualification was exchanged. The expert stated that he had two meetings with TT approximately four years before the issuance of this opinion. One meeting was held before the NDA was executed and one after. TT alleged that there were additional meetings, but only had supporting evidence of two meetings. TT also alleged that it discussed litigation strategy, prior art and a relevant court decision with the expert. But based upon an in camera review of TT’s evidence, the Court held that there was not sufficient evidence of an exchange of confidential information. The emails TT provided were one or two lines each and contained no confidential or work product information. And TT did not provide attorney notes or other evidence of confidential or work product information. The Court did acknowledge that one email discussion of a court opinion could have been work product, but the expert’s response was so brief and vague that the Court did not consider it advice. 
 

Finally, TT did not offer evidence that it retained the expert or paid him any fees. TT did argue that it compensated the expert by having TT’s president speak to a trading group the expert owned. But there was no evidence that the speaking engagement was intended to be or was accepted as payment for the expert’s work.

* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives and click here for a copy of this opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are several stories worth checking out, but that did not warrant a separate post:

• PA Tracer's monthly patent filings report is out.  The Northern District had nine new cases filed in July.  That is reasonably busy for the deep summer, but nothing compared to the Eastern District of Texas's 25 new patent cases -- click here to read PA Tracer's post.
   
• The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a story recently about Judge St. Eve -- click here to read it.*  The story discusses many traits that are obvious to those who have practiced before her.  Judge St. Eve is very punctual and efficient, and she has absolute control of her courtroom, which she maintains with a civility and kindness that are impressive.  The article also speculates, using unnamed colleagues and media as sources, that Judge St. Eve will eventually be on Supreme Court short lists.  Here's hoping she stays in the Northern District a long time before getting called up to One First Street.
   
• Chicago Lawyer Magazine did a nice profile on Chicago IP lawyer Carol Genis of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd.  Click here to read it.  The article largely focuses on how Genis develops strong bonds of trust and friendship with clients.
   
• Duane Valz, Vice President & Associate General Counsel of Yahoo!’s Global Patent Strategy, is discussing approaches for patenting Internet-related ideas in a webinar on Wednesday, September 3 from 1:30 - 3:00 CT -- click here for more information.

*  Hat tip to the WSJ Law Blog for pointing out the story here.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week’s Olympic edition Blawg Review focused on the medals. Building on that, this week I discuss the elements of a world record swim. If you were watching last week, instead of blogging, you saw 20 of them in the Olympic pool; seven by Mr. Phelps.

Practice

Nothing is more critical than preparation. A big part of preparation is tightening your stroke and cutting out unnecessary motion. Reese Morrison, at the Law Department Management blog, discusses blunt suggestions for trimming legal bills.

Endless hours in the pool alone are not enough, you need a good coach. Business development coach Cordell Parvin provides an excellent three part series at his Law Consulting Blog – one, two, and three – on persistence, an important element of any Olympic training program. In an Olympic caliber display of persistence, Drug & Device Law had an exhaustive post discussing and classifying each medical device preemption case since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).

You also need a support network to help you get through all of the pool time. Bruce Allen, at Marketing Catalyst, teaches us how to avoid the cocktail conversation you cannot escape from at a networking event. At Copyblogger, John Morrow explains that content is no longer king in the blogosphere, you need friends. And he teaches you how to get them. At BlawgIT, Brett Trout – who is a fighter, not a swimmer – has an interesting post about how to work together as a community to thwart webjackings (the hijacking of a website). And Mediation Channel’s Diane Levin discusses the social side of blogging, and reading blogs.

Of course, if you do not have time to practice you will never set the record. So, you need a job, or at least some cash. On that note, Harmful Error posts the great news that loan forgiveness programs were expanded this week for legal aid lawyers, state prosecutors and public defenders. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (7)
• Share Link

Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

The parties in this case filed a Stipulation of Dismissal this week -- click here to read it.  Of course, details of the settlement were not disclosed.  But this appears to close what had been a very contentious dispute -- click here to read the Blog's coverage of the case. 

One other note about the case, I had been meaning to cover plaintiff's motion to strike some of defendant's pleadings for using variations of the term "shell corporation," arguing that the term is derogatory in a manner similar to the "patent troll" moniker.  Judge Pallmeyer ruled on the motion in a Minute Order stating that the Court would no longer use the terms, but denying the motion to strike.  Because the Minute Order does not provide much analysis and because the issue was already covered very well by Joe Mullin at The Prior Art blog -- click here to read Mullin's post -- I will not do a separate post on the motion.  But if you are interested in the historical, legal use of the term, the pleadings on the motion are an excellent information source.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

I have written about the legal issues surrounding social networking sites (click here and here to read those posts).  I even did an ALI-ABA teleseminar with Eric Goldman yesterday discussing, among other things, how the Communications Decency Act protects social networking sites against suit based on third party content published on the sites.  But Julie Kay's National Law Journal article yesterday -- click here to read it -- provided a new angle on the power of social networking sites in the courtroom. 

It is no surprise that lawyers, either alone or assisted by jury consultants, research juror backgrounds, and use their research during voir dire and to inform their trial presentations, in particular opening and closing arguments.  Of course, internet research has been a cornerstone of those efforts for years.  But social networking sites have vastly increased the amount of information available about the average person.  Instead of learning someone's Turkey Trot 5k time and one or two newspaper quotes, you now may be able to see their entire resume on LinkedIn, read about major life events on FaceBook, or even read their personal, daily thoughts on a blog.  Kay reports that the information is a valuable fact checking tool, acting as a backstop to information provided in a jury questionnaire.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am hosting Blawg Review -- the 173rd edition -- next Monday.  I talked some smack about writing a great Review, and Victoria Pynchon has set a high bar.  So, please send me your best posts by clicking here for Blawg Review's submission guidelines and  using Blawg Review's submission form.  And come back Monday to read the Review.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jones Day v. BlockShopper.com, No. 08 C 4572 (N.D. Ill.) (Darrah, J.).

Plaintiff Jones Day sued defendants, BlockShopper.com and two individuals allegedly associated with the website, for allegedly using plaintiff’s service marks and linking to plaintiff’s website in at least two articles that allegedly discuss Chicago real estate transactions of plaintiff’s associates. Plaintiff claims service mark infringement, Lanham Act false designation of origin, Lanham Act dilution, and state law deceptive trade practices and unfair competition – click here for the complaint. Plaintiff also moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) – click here for the TRO motion. In addition to the use of its service marks, plaintiff alleged that defendants used pictures of plaintiff’s associates that appear to be identical to pictures on plaintiff’s website.

A January 2007 Chicago Tribune article described defendants’ website as one that provides details surrounding Chicago-area real estate transactions using a Cook County list of home sales and internet research, noting that subjects of some posts do not like the stories:

But BlockShopper goes beyond the basic who-what-and-how-much, revealing tantalizing tidbits such as what the parties do for a living and what the sellers originally paid for the property, plus satellite maps and even photos of the property and the parties.

The TRO hearing was noticed for Tuesday, August 19. I will keep you updated as decisions are issued.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (3)
• Share Link

Square D Co. v. Elec. Soln’s, Inc., No. 07 C 6294, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill., Jul. 22, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran granted plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery and compel production of certain documents, but tabled plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were selling counterfeit electrical products using plaintiffs’ trademarks. The parties entered an agreed preliminary injunction pursuant to which defendant agreed not to sell any products with plaintiffs’ trademarks, and to plaintiffs’ inspection of defendants’ inventory on or before February 29, 2008, unless the parties agreed to a later date.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hope Family Vineyards Pty, Ltd., v. Hope Wine, LLC, No. 08 C 3246, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2008) (Lindberg, J.).

Judge Lindberg granted defendant’s §1404(a) motion to transfer to the Central District of California. Plaintiff was an Australian entity with its principal place of business in Australia. Its only direct connection to the Northern District was that its exclusive U.S. distributor was headquartered in Illinois. The distributor, however, was not a party to the suit. The Court therefore, gave plaintiff’s choice of forum minimal deference.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week's Blawg Review is available -- click here to read it -- at the Ohio Employer's Law Blog written by the lawyers at Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz.  The Blawg Review's Olympic edition awards gold medals in two categories of blog posts:  1) employment law; and 2) non-employment law.  It is worth your time, if you can pull yourself away from Michael Phelps's second run at Mark Spitz' record eight gold medals in a single Olympics.  But after last night's amazing finish in the 4 X 100 M relay, I would not suggest you stay away too long.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ACCO Brands USA LLC v. SecuComputer, Inc., Nos. 03 C 1820, 06 C 7102, 07 C 0591, 2008 WL 2566863 (N.D. Ill., Jun. 25, 2008) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel construed the claims of plaintiff’s patents to security locks for portable electronics, like laptops. The Court held that all term, but one had ordinary meanings that were not altered by the intrinsic evidence. Of particular note, the Court held that “about” had an ordinary meaning of “approximately.” The Court denied one defendant’s effort to limit “about” to within machining tolerances of dimensions set forth in a preferred embodiment.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are several items that did not necessarily warrant a separate post, but are worth some attention:

• Chicago blogger Evan Brown of Internet Cases recently participated in episode 16 of the This Week in the Law podcast with law blog luminaries Denise Howell (the host), Nicole Black, Marty Schwimmer and Ernie Svenson -- click here for Brown's post and a link to the podcast. Their lively discussion included numerous IP topics including: 
  • DMCA anticircumvention provisions;
  • ediscovery; and
  • the Viacom v. Google discovery issues (the parties ultimately agreed that the compelled user data could be produced anonymously).
    
• Mike Atkins did a great series of post comparing the benefits of state and federal trademark registration -- click here and here for the posts.  These posts are a great primer, if you want to understand the differences between and trade offs for state versus federal registration.
  
• The John Marshall Law School has been included in the PTO's new Law School Clinic Program.  Beginning this fall, second and third year John Marshall students will represent inventors in actual PTO proceedings.  This is a great opportunity for both the students and the inventors.  Click here for John Marshall's press release about the new program.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Arience Builders, Inc. v. Baltes, No. 08 C 921, 2008 WL 2580166 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 17, 2008) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) claim challenging whether plaintiff sufficiently pled a “transmission.” The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant used “a code and/or command” to “delete and/or change” plaintiff’s computer and electronic files constituted a transmission. The allegations went well beyond simply pressing a delete key, which the Seventh Circuit held was not a CFAA transmission in Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 419 (7th cir. 2006).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Proskauer Rose's just launched New Media & Technology  Law Blog* has a very interesting post by Jeff Neuburger on the upcoming scarcity of IP addresses (the numeric identifier required for each unique location on the internet) -- click here to read the post.  The current IP address protocol, IPv4, is a 32-bit scheme that provides about 4.3B addresses.  That is an astounding number, but according to some reports we could use all of those addresses as early as 2010 or 2011.  The most likely solution to the problem is a switch to the 128-bit scheme that is known as IPv6.  But doing that will come at the cost of switching out hardware not designed for IPv6 and retraining network operators. 

You may be wondering whether there is a legal take away from this, and here it is.  Neuburger's post discusses the US government's efforts to prepare for the change over by beginning to require new equipment to be IPv6 compliant.  Of course, this is just as much an issue for corporations as it is for governments.  And if we are running out of IPv4 addresses and if there is a switch to IPv6, we could see a large number of technology contract disputes and law suits over whether agreements were breached by failing to provide IPv6 ready hardware.  But those suits will be more effective if you add a IPv6 representation and warranty to your new agreements, as Neuburger explains:

If you are an attorney involved in technology transactions, at a minimum, become IPv6 aware. You might want to query your clients on the need for representations and warranties on IPv6 capability in technology transactions. And keep your eye on the horizon for legal developments related to IPv6. If the alarmists are right and scarcity of addresses is truly looming, we may see legal disputes over issues such as hoarding of IP addresses, and efforts to create a market for IP addresses, the allocation of which is currently controlled by non-profit corporations.

* The New Media & Technology  Law Blog, another LexBlog site, is off to a great start and is worth a spot in your RSS feed.  In particular, I was very impressed with the quality of the writing.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For my rookie Blawg Review, I kept my head down, worked hard and hoped to meet the Review's high standards set by the reviewers before me.  Victoria Pynchon at the IP ADR Blog, took a different route.  She guaranteed victory, promising "one of the best [Blawg Review]'s ever."  And she was right.  She used a risque theme and a massive number of links to deliver an excellent review -- click here to read it.  My only complaint, I cannot possibly get through all of her linked posts.

I am hosting the Blawg Review in two weeks, and Pynchon has set the bar high.  Make sure to be here in two weeks to watch me clear it.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Managing Intellectual Property published its annual list of the fifty most powerful people in the international IP community (hat tip to Patent Docs for pointing it out).  Click here for the list (subscription or two week free trial sign up required).  There were two honorees with Chicago connections:

• Rhonda Steele (#8) -- Steele is both the president of INTA and Asia-Pacific marketing properties manager for Mars.  While Steele does not necessarily work in Chicago or on Chicago-specific IP, Mars makes Fun Size versions of its 3 Musketeers, Snickers and Milky Way candy bars in Chicago.
  
• Jim Malackowski (#34) -- Malackowski is a founder of Chicago-based Ocean Tomo, as well as its president and CEO.  Among other things, Ocean Tomo is well known for its patent auctions (at leas the last several of which have each totalled more than $10M in sales), IP valuation services and damages expert work.

These IP luminaries share the honor with Second Life avatars (#1), the PTO's Director John Dudas (#4), the Federal Circuit's Judge Michel (#9), Harry Potter (#14),and  blogger and Google copyright counsel William Patry, of the Patry Copyright Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bill Patry announced that he is ending his blog, the Patry Copyright Blog.  I will miss Patry's insight into the copyright world.  For the last several years I have routinely turned to his blog when I needed a fresh take on or a deeper understanding of a current event in the copyright world.  Patry's posts were always thoughtful, detailed and powerful, sometimes even provocative.  Sadly for me, I will have to turn elsewhere the next time I struggle with a copyright issue.  And I am not alone in my disappointment:

• Fire of Genius
  
• Patently-O
  
• Rob Hyndman

Bill, Thank you for your time and your insight over the last several years and 800 posts.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, August 13 at noon CT, I am giving a teleseminar with Evan Brown (a fellow Chicagoan who writes the insightful Internet Cases blog) and Professor Eric Goldman (who writes the excellent Technology & Marketing Law Blog) discussing the current state of the Communication Decency Act's Good Samaritan clause.  The seminar will focus on, among other things, the Roommates decision in the Ninth Circuit -- click here for Goldman's posts on the case -- and the Craigslist decision from the Seventh Circuit (upholding a Judge St. Eve opinion) -- click here for the Blog's posts about that case and here for Brown's posts. 

Click here for ALI-ABA's web brochure about the seminar.  It promises to be an interesting discussion with lively debate.  And ALI-ABA has generously offered a $30 discount off of the seminar's $149 cost for Blog readers that use this code:  TSPV02DD.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link