Ago 30 2012

Puerto 80 will have its domains back

Tag: (i)realidad,Informática LegalJoaquim Anguas @ 10:08 am

As some of you may remember, in January 2011 Puerto 80 S.L.U. got seized its domains and

Yesterday August 29th, The Honorable Paul A. Crotty, District Judge at the Southern District of New York, ordered the warrants of seizure to be vacated and the domains returned.

Previously, the same day, the District Attorney Preet Bharara submitted a letter to advise the Court that “…as a result of certain recent judicial authority involving issues germane to the above-captioned action, and in light of the particular circumstances of this litigation, the Government now seeks to dismiss its amended forfeiture complaint.”

I guess the “certain recent judicial authority involving issues germane to the above-captioned action” are Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, — F.3d —-, 2012 WL 3124826 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012) cited in a Notice of Supplemental Authority submitted to the court by the defendants last August 8th.

It literally says:

The court concluded that that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on its claim that the “myVidster” website was liable for direct or contributory copyright infringement by hosting and embedding links to infringing copies of the plaintiff’s videos, which were not hosted by myVidster.

The Flava Works opinion supports the position that the seized domain names are neither committing, enabling or assisting infringement by engaging in the conduct alleged by the government in the Amended Complaint. The Seventh Circuit explained that because watching a streaming video is not infringement (any more than sneaking into a theater and watching a copyrighted movie is infringement), providing a link to where a streaming video is hosted does not encourage or assist infringement.

See also arstechnica and the full saga at techdirt.

Ago 26 2012

Neil Armstrong, 1930-2012

Tag: (i)realidadJoaquim Anguas @ 8:10 am

image credits

See also BoingBoing

Ago 07 2012

Cross examination

Tag: Informática LegalJoaquim Anguas @ 3:21 pm

This assertion, however, went against something Bressler said earlier in testimony, which Samsung’s attorney Charles Verhoeven was quick to catch and point out to jurors: Bressler previously said that each and every detail is important in evaluating patents. Verhoeven continued to grill Bressler about the specific details of the Vibrant and other Samsung phones’ designs.

“You’re asking me to compare peanut butter to turkey,” Bressler told Verhoeven as he grew frustrated with the latter’s questions. Your guess is as good as ours as to whether Apple’s phones or Samsung’s are the peanut butter, or the turkey.

From Wired, arstechnica.