Published on: | by

Michelle Obama is officially live on Twitter. The first lady’s Twitter feed went live on Thursday and her link is being managed by the president’s re-election campaign. The first two tweets came from the campaign staff and described the account as “a new way for you to connect with First Lady Michelle Obama and the President’s campaign.” The traffic was high within the first hour with more than 20,000 followers. President Barack Obama also has a Twitter account managed by the campaign. Its first tweet of the day: “It’s not every day we get to welcome the First Lady of the United States to Twitter – happy to have you, Michelle Obama!”
This acknowledges that technology plays a key role in our lives and allows us to communicate with each other through different means and methods. Twitter is an online social networking service and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read text-based posts of up to 140 characters, known as “tweets”. It was created in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey and launched that July. The service rapidly gained worldwide popularity, with over 300 million users as of 2011, generating over 300 million tweets and handling over 1.6 billion search queries per day. It has been described as “the SMS of the Internet.” Twitter Inc. is based in San Francisco, with additional servers and offices in New York City.

Published on: | by

In January 2011, the University of Minnesota filed suit alleging that a website operator violated copyright law by posting a widely-used psychological test online. The psychological test, which is known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI”), was developed to assess personality traits and help diagnose mental disorders. This test contains more than 500 statements which test takers are supposed to mark either true or false. Over the years, MMPI has become one of the most commonly used psychological tests. The lawsuit alleges that a New Zealand-based Web operator named Andrew Dobson illegally posted the statements and software that claimed to interpret the answers to two websites.

The university’s main concern is to avoid exposure of the test questions to ensure validity of responses because if test-takers have seen the test before, then any responses may be invalid. The University’s lawyer stated that the lawsuit was filed to ensure the websites did not repost the tests. In addition, if the websites cooperate, the lawsuit will likely be withdrawn.

This topic is an example of how intellectual property can be obtained and abused by a third party without legal justification. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. Intellectual property is divided into two categories: (1) Industrial Property which includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications; and (2) Copyright which includes literary works (e.g., novels, poems and plays), films, music, artistic works (e.g., drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures) and architectural design. The legal rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and broadcasters in their radio and television programs.

Published on: | by

In California, a new Facebook feature which permits an advertiser to publish or broadcast a user’s “like” of its product to others in that individual’s circle is under scrutiny.

The United States District Court in San Jose, California refused to grant a motion to dismiss which states that Facebook ads violate its user’s right of publicity by utilizing their names and photographs without authorization. However, the court dismissed an unjust enrichment claim. In the lawsuit, Facebook’s position is that user permission is not required to promote its user’s likes to those in that user’s circle, in a category it terms “sponsored stories.” Facebook contends that such information is newsworthy and exempted under California’s right-of-publicity statute. The company’s position is that its users constitute public figures.

California’s right-of-publicity statute is codified under Civil Code section 3344 which states as follows:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In the recent years, online harassment or cyberharassment has become an important issue. This is because the Internet has changed our lives on so many levels. Generally, the law prohibits harassment and our readers should consider taking certain precautions when being harassed.

Cyberharassment is different from cyberstalking because it does not involve a credible threat. Cyberharassment occurs when someone sends harassing email messages, instant messages, or posts entries simply to torment another person. Different jurisdictions have different approaches in addressing cyberharassment in codifying their laws. For example, some include language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes. However, some states have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.

California Penal Code section 653.2(a) states that, “[e]very person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In California, the stalking laws are included under Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, which states that any person who willfully and maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or that of an immediate family member is guilty of stalking. Stalking cases may include additional related charges such as: (1) Trespassing; (2) Vandalism; (3) Burglary; (4) Criminal Threats; and (5) Obscene, Threatening, or Annoying Phone Calls.

Please keep in mind that willfulness is a standard related to the culprit’s state of mind. For example, when the person is acting purposefully, then he/she has the “conscious object” of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist. If the person is acting knowingly, then he/she is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result. If the person is acting recklessly, then he/she is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a “law-abiding person” would have refrained from. If the person acts negligently, then he/she is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a “reasonable person” would have been aware. Finally, if the person acts with strict liability, then mental state is irrelevant and he/she is strictly liable.

In the last few years and with the emerging of the world wide web, a new kind of stalking has developed which is also called “cyber stalking.” This type of misconduct occurs when the violator utilizes the Internet, electronic mail (e-mail) or other communication devices to harass and stalk others. For example, it can occur by sending e-mails to the victim, impersonating another person in online chat rooms and e-mail messages, and disseminating lies in cyberspace. It is also important to note that the Internet is a cheap and efficient method for “cyber stalkers” to anonymously cause harm to their victims.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

If you use email in your day-to-day business operations the CAN-SPAM Act is a law that sets the rules for commercial email. It also establishes the requirements for commercial messages, provides recipients the right to have the sender stop emailing them, and mentions the penalties for related violations.

The CAN-SPAM Act applies to bulk email and all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service,” including email that promotes content on commercial websites. The law makes no exception for business-to-business email which means all email. As an example, a message to former customers announcing a new product line is required to comply with the law.

Each violation of the CAN-SPAM Act is subject to penalties of up to $16,000. Here are the CAN-SPAM Act’s main requirements:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In light of the circumstances, numerous states have enacted “cyberstalking” or “cyberharassment” laws or currently possess laws that specifically include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, many states have enacted “cyberbullying” laws in reaction to issues related to protecting minors from online bullying or harassment.

Cyberstalking constitutes use of the world-wide-web (i.e., the Internet), electronic mail or other electronic communications to stalk. It generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. It may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Penalties range from misdemeanor to felony. See Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7, Cal. Penal Code § 646.9.

Cyberharassment is different from cyberstalking since it may not involve a credible threat. It usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting a person. Some state legislatures have dealt with this issue by inserting provisions which address electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 653.2, and 653m.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Samsung Electronics, the second largest maker of mobile phones, claims that Apple Inc. has infringed upon its patents since entering the mobile-phone market with the iPhone 3G, a lawyer for Samsung told a Dutch court as the Korean company seeks a ban on some Apple products in the Netherlands.

“Apple just entered the market in 2008 without taking care of the licenses,” Bas Berghuis van Woortman, a lawyer for Simmons & Simmons LLP who represents Samsung, said in The Hague court. “Apple is consciously, structurally infringing the 3G patents.”

The parties will be discussing settlement soon as this is yet another legal battle between two technology giants over intellectual property rights.

Published on: | by

In the recent years, numerous Internet forums (aka “online message boards”) have provided a place for Internet users to discuss issues, entities/companies, and persons or individuals, who are often disguised in some form of anonymity. Sometimes, the targets of disparaging comments react by filing lawsuits in state or federal courts against unidentified (“John Doe”) defendants for claims such as violation of securities laws, breach of confidentiality agreement, and libel. Generally, in such disputes subpoenas are submitted to the message board hosts so to identify the authors. Notwithstanding the various challenges, the courts differ in their treatment of such subpoenas.

For example, see Jon Hart & Michael Rothberg, Anonymous Internet Postings Pit Free Speech Against Accountability, WSJ.com (March 6, 2002).

In Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) Mobilisa, a communications company, filed a complaint against numerous “John Doe” defendants who had submitted an anonymous e-mail to Mobilisa’s management team about the company’s founder and CFO’s conducts. Thereafter, Mobilisa attempted to compel The Suggestion Box, which was the service provider through which the e-mail was submitted, so to obtain the person’s identity who had submitted the e-mail. The trial court granted Mobilisa’s request and ordered The Suggestion Box to reveal the identities of the anonymous senders. Thereafter, The Suggestion Box and the senders of the e-mail appealed the trial court’s decision.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, no provider of an interactive computer service may be treated as the publisher of information provided by another information content provider. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

Generally, holding a website operator as the publisher of an allegedly libelous statement by a third party violates the Act. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998). Accordingly, the standard pursuant to Zeran is that when an online service provider receives a retraction demand regarding statements the service provider did not write, the demanding party should be re-directed to the third-party originator (i.e., the person who originally wrote the defamatory statement).

California’s Retraction Statute under Cal. Civ. Code § 48a states that:

Continue Reading ›