The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments next year over the dismissal of a class-action by Facebook users who claimed they were hurt when Facebook promoted its “Friend Finder” by displaying their profile information.
A briefing schedule is now listed on the court’s case docket.
Last month, Judge Richard Seeborg granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint in the ‘Find Friends’ class-action, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to plead how they could actually be hurt. (Read the six-page decision below)
There’s a bitter legal feud in the Wild Yonder out West. The trademark fighter pilot litigators at two telecoms are fueling their IP jets, checking their legal payloads, and heading for a showdown over the clear blue skies of eastern California and northern Nevada.
Carlsbad, California-based ViaSat®, owner of Yonder mobile broadband, fired the first salvo, launching a service mark infringement lawsuit against Yonder Wireless, a Reno, Nevada-based rural broadband provider. The legal filing contains a number of other claims in this business dispute. (Read the full text of the lawsuit below)
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (‘FTC’) announced that it reached a tentative settlement with Facebook over charges that the social media company engaged in deceptive privacy practices with consumers.
But will the proposed settlement (you can read it below) really protect users in an era when tech privacy law is constantly evolving? It’s not final yet; consumers have until the end of 2011 to tell the FCC what they think about it.
Record label UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc., the owner of online music streaming website Grooveshark, five of the company’s executives, and two other employees for alleged copyright infringement.
UMG’s newest lawsuit contains purported email exchanges with company director Sina Simantob alleging, in part, that Escape “bet the company on the fact that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask [record labels] permission” to use their copyrighted works. (Read the full complaint below).
Now that the flood gates for .XXX domain name registrations are open, one adult website company owner and manager chose to complain about registration fees by filing an antitrust lawsuit.
Luxembourg-based plaintiff Marwin Licensing International SARL accused the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (‘ICANN’) and ICM Registry, LLC of engaging in “monopolistic conduct, price gouging, and anti-competitive and unfair practices.”
Our friends at CALI [Computer Assisted Legal Instruction] and Cornell LII have issued a series of helpful e-books for lawyers, law students, and anyone else who wants quick and free access to the Federal Rules. The Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Procedure, and Criminal Procedure are available for free download on CALI’s site. The book’s are based on Cornell LII’s federal rules collection, and are current to December 2010. They include the Advisory Committee’s notes, a functioning Table of Contents, internal links and external links to the LII site. They are “DRM-free” which means you can read them on any device you choose.
A hat tip to our friend Ed Walters over at FastCase who alerted us to the news that Colorado has proposed adopting a public domain citation format for its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals published opinions. (Yay!) By our count, this means there will now be seventeen states using some form of universal / vendor neutral citation for their court opinions.
A link to the proposal (in PDF) is here. Public comments are welcome on the proposed changes but must be in by December 12, 2011.
I recently blogged about a roadblock in the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation; specifically, the Texas Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion that the examination was outside the scope of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s investigative authority. Incendiary, a new documentary about the case, is opening across the United States. Incendiary chronicles the original investigation, trial and subsequent investigation by the Commission. It provides an extraordinary look into the Commission proceedings, the science and the defense attorney’s perspective. It picks up where Frontline left off, going even deeper into this long and complicated investigation.