CrunchGear » Law

Judge: RealDVD is totally illegal as per the DMCA

Nicholas Deleon — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:30:39 +0000

Yesterday, August 11, wasn’t just Joe Rogan’s birthday. Nope, it was also the date when a judge in San Francisco ruled that RealDVD was illegal, and reiterated that it was illegal to manufacture or traffic software that makes it possible to copy DVDs. So, every time you fire up DVD Copier on your PC, make a copy of a DVD that you bought, well, you’re breaking the law. The DMCA just keeps on giving, doesn’t it?

Who can forget RealDVD? For a split second last fall, Real, a company generally loathed online as a result of its rubbish software history, found support on so many message boards for releasing RealDVD. It enabled people to make copies of DVDs to their PC. Fair Use, etc. The resulting copy was only playable on that particular PC, so it wasn’t like you’d be able to load up the ISO into your BearShare shared folder. (Man, who else remembers the days when you had to manually add servers to the various Windows Gnutella programs?) In any event, you won’t be able to do that now, since the judge ruled that RealDVD conflicts with the DMCA, the awesome Federal law that has been ruining our lives since 1998.

(Incidentally, if I were entertaining the idea of going to law school, what’s one with a fine copyright law/IP department? That’s the only type of law that would personally interest me.)

But here’s where it gets interesting. Said U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel:

So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.

Soooo, we have the right to make Fair Use copies of our DVDs, but the DMCA makes it illegal for someone to produce such software. And I’m going to assume that the word “manufacture” means it’s also illegal to sit there and program your own copying software. Something to do with Federal Law (DMCA) trumping Common Law (Fair Use).

Meanwhile, I just watched this video again, by Carl Sagan, and realized that none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Cellphone fingerprint law now in effect in Mexico

Nicholas Deleon — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:00:12 +0000

Good news, everyone. That Mexican law that requires cellphone users to be fingerprinted and registered into a national database went into effect [Spanish] the other day. It’s an effort to crack down on violent crime, since, as well all know, cellphones are notorious criminals and won’t think twice about dropping an Acme anvil onto your head.

I won’t even pretend to understand the ins and outs of the current Mexican situation, something to do with Americans’ insatiable appetite for the likes of marijuana and cocaine, and Mexican drug lords’ uncanny ability to supply those drugs at whatever the cost. It’s pretty bleak, yes.

Right, so moving forward, anyone who wants a cellphone in Mexico will have to provide official photo ID, an address and step up to the fingerprinting booth. If you already have a cellphone you’ll have to retroactively provide all that information.

Carriers are required to advertise the new law, so that no one can say, “But I didn’t know anything about it.”

Here’s a fun stat: there’s 70 million cellphones users in Mexico, and some 90 percent of them use a pre-paid phone.

via Slashdot

French National Assembly rejects anti-piracy law (for now)

Nicholas Deleon — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:00:07 +0000

Another day, another twist in that proposed French anti-piracy law. While the French upper house, the Senate, approved the bill as it was presented earlier today, the lower house, the National Assembly, rejected it. Oh don’t worry, since the Government said it will present a revised edition of the bill that would remove the main clause that upset the National Assembly.

To recap, the proposed bill would boot illegal file-sharers off the Internet after being caught three times—the three strikes rule (is baseball popular enough in France for that dumb metaphor to be appropriate?). What the National Assembly didn’t like, specifically, was that the bill would have required pirates to continue to pay their ISP subscription fee. It’s that provision that upset the a few members of the right; the left thought the bill was dumb from the get-go.

But again, President Sarkozy’s right-hand man in the Parliament, one Roger Karoutchi, said the Government will present a new bill without that pesky you-still-need-to-pay provision.

France 24 should be interesting today.

Utah’s anti-video game bill has Jack Thompson written all over it

Nicholas Deleon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:40:00 +0000

Have any of you guys been following this anti-video game/movie bill that’s currently bouncing around Utah’s legislature? It’s gotten attention for a few reasons, one of which is because the original version of the bill—it has since been amended—was either written by or conceived by (depending on to whom you talk) famous video game hater (and disbarred lawyer) Jack Thompson. Legislatively speaking, it’s a pretty exciting progression.

The bill, HB 353, would punish retailers who say they don’t sell violent video games to minors but actually do sell such games to minors. In other words, if you open a store—Ted’s Video Game Emporium, for example—and flatly say, “We sell all games to everyone, regardless of the ESRB rating, it’s not like that’s law or anything” then Utah would have no problem with you. Well, I’m sure it would have a problem with you, but not with respect to this bill.

As always, Video Game Politics has all the “Inside Baseball” coverage you could want.

One other thing: there’s one of those form letter petitions going around that, if you live in Utah, you may to want sign. I’m nominally against form letter campaigns—it makes it easy for people who don’t know too much about a subject to complain to The Man—but if you like to see your government in action! It’s like a real life civics class.

What I’ve always wanted to know is, why does Jack Thompson even give a damn about who buys what video game and whether or not they’re violent? Just retire and live on a beach already, sir.

Got a few minutes? Then read up on the law students who are taking on the RIAA

Nicholas Deleon — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:00:55 +0000

Ars Technica is usually one of the better sites to read if you’re looking for a “serious” take on technology, but its profile of the Harvard Law students working on the RIAA v. Joel Tenenbaum case is in a league of its own. It’s a little on the long side, in this age of Twitter, but well worth the time invested if you’re interested in any of the following topics: the RIAA; music piracy; justice; or a good, old fashioned David v. Goliath story.

If you’re not aware, the RIAA is suing Joel Tenenbaum because, the cartel claims, he illegally downloaded a bunch of songs some time ago. Fair enough. What makes his case different from all the others is that his defense is the subject of a for-credit class at Harvard Law School, overseen by one Prof. Charles Nesson. The students in the class, the ones profiled by Ars Technica today, draw up legal arguments as to why the RIAA has gone overboard in its pursuit of damages, that the RIAA is clearly not acting here to “educate” would-be music pirates, and so on. The students are trying to clear Tenebaum’s good name, while drawing attention to the RIAA’s heavy handed tactics. To that end, the students are trying to convince the presiding judge to allow them to broadcast the trial online; the RIAA object to this.

(If there’s one thing in the profile that annoyed me, it’s this line: “While arguments may be the key issue in court, the students haven’t been content to make their case only to the judge. Harvard Law student Debbie Rosenbaum is heading up media relations, and she’s doing a shockingly effective job.” Then it goes on to describe how she’s set up a Twitter feed and a blog. My concern: what is so shocking about a Twitter feed and a blog? The Blitz, now that was shocking.)

You’ll note that the law students aren’t trying fight “The Man” or anything, but rather are trying to seek justice, which is sort of novel.

So, again, if you’ve got a few minutes today you’d do well to read the whole profile. It’s a better use of your time than, say, playing one of those silly Flash games that are so popular.

Is breathalyzer source code fair game?

Doug Aamoth — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:40:00 +0000

Kentucky-based CMI has come under fire on more than one occasion for not turning over the source code used in the breathalyzers that it sells to various law enforcement agencies, citing trade secrets as the reason for keeping the code under wraps. Well that hasn’t sat too well with people who have been pulled over and cited with DUIs, as some of them have claimed that the machines aren’t registering blood alcohol levels accurately.

Just this week, 100 cases were thrown out of a Bradenton, Florida court after defense attorneys demanded to have the source code for CMI’s Intoxilyzer 5000 examined by breathalyzer experts. Kentucky-based CMI refused to turn over the code and software used with its machines, despite threats of more than $2 million in fines.

Bradenton Judge Doug Henderson eventually ruled that “the refusal was a violation of due process,” saying that “The defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighed the manufacturer’s claim of a trade secret.” As such, breathalyzer evidence for the pending cases was deemed inadmissible – and some of those cases had dragged on for over three years.

A similar case involving CMI happened in Minnesota not too long ago when a defendant asked to see the source code for the same model of breathalyzer mentioned above. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that “under the contract between the state and CMI, the state owned the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN.”

So is all this source code hoopla just a stalling tactic or are these legitimate claims?

“What’s frightening is that the 5000EN is apparently based on the ancient Z-80 processor, which powered the Radio Shack TRS-80 desktop computer … which went on sale in 1977. CMI has also been accused of making uncertified changes to the machines, and had to issue a recall due to faulty software.”

That, according to an article on Switched.com about the Minnesota case back in 2007. Also, please reference the above image for a look at the actual machine.

The bigger issue here, however, isn’t about faulty software, hardware, or source code, it’s that a publicly-funded entity like your local police department buys technology from the private sector and then has no access to information about how the technology works. When that technology is used as evidence in a trial, should it be open to scrutiny by the defense? Your thoughts?

[via Slashdot]

The RIAA will stop its policy of filing lawsuits every 2 seconds (but now it’s working with your ISP)

Nicholas Deleon — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:40:26 +0000

The RIAA has decided to stop filing pointless lawsuits against John and Jane Doe for alleged copyright infringement. Rather, the bullying cartel will work with ISPs to get you kids to stop downloading Fallout Boy, the All American Rejects and other self-described popular music.

From now on it’ll work like this. The RIAA sees that you’re uploading (“seeding” in BitTorrent parlance) 808s and Heartbreak and will send a letter to your ISP. Your ISP, then, will notify you that you’re on the RIAA’s radar, and that you’re to knock it off, or else. Depending on the ISP, you’ll be given a number of warnings, which could be accompanied by bandwidth throttling, before having your connection terminated.

The RIAA won’t say which ISPs have agreed to its new scheme.

Meanwhile, decent, hard-working people are losing their jobs left and right as a result of Wall Street’s unfettered money orgy; good luck getting sympathy from these people. But go ahead, RIAA, keep pretending that some 9th grade girl seeding Brittney Spears’ Circus is putting the your industry in the pour house.

Annoyed at airport security searching your iPod? You’re not the only one

Nicholas Deleon — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:20:21 +0000

From the Department of Public Safety and General Preparedness comes this story of one man, a Cisco engineer, and his headline-making ordeal of having his possessions searched upon re-entry to the U.S. following an international flight. (It’s also the story of run-on sentences.) The man, Mohamed Shommo, told the Associated Press that border agents rifled through his digital camera’s photos, his Google searches and the files on his iPod. That’s all done in the name of Your Safety, mind.

No, we can’t have this, can we? No, says privacy advocates. They, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and various Muslim rights folks, say that such searches are unreasonable and very mean. The rookie officer at Customs doesn’t need to look at your Google history to protect the homeland, they argue. Certain members of Congress agree, and now there’s several bills milling about that may actually pass next year. One such bill would require customs officials to officially be suspicious of a traveler in order to search his electronic belongings. (Right now, those same officials merely have to be “awake” and “in a foul mood” to be able to search your stuff.)

Your best bet, I think, is to travel with an unreasonable number of gadgets. That way, the young gun at customs elects to wave you through rather than search 10 cellphones, three laptops, two camcorders, four digital cameras, etc. Be a nuisance, then.

Apple on its ads: “What, you believed that stuff?”

Devin Coldewey — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:18:41 +0000

This is great. There’s something to be said for the defense of exaggeration or idiom in advertising — for instance, Red Bull doesn’t literally give you wings. Of course, nobody’s suing Red Bull for false advertising. But when the statement is the totally believable “Twice as fast, half the price,” and you support the ad with fraudulent video showing the product in question accomplishing tasks at unrealistic speeds, you might be pushing it. And yet, Apple’s defense is that:

“…No reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple’s statements as claims of fact.”

Ha! Well, you can be sure nobody will consider Apple’s statements “claims of fact” now!

Yeah, the lawsuit is questionable, but the response is classic.

No more embarrassment: Non-nude body scanner to undergo tests this week in Germany

Nicholas Deleon — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:39:18 +0000

Last week’s attacks in India have reminded us all of the keen danger that terrorism poses. But one tool that was to be employed at airports to combat terrorism, those body scanners that sometimes reveal a person’s, well, person, came under criticism. Fighting terror (inasmuch as you can fight it) is great and all, but should people literally be exposed in the process? The Germans say no, and are developing a body scanner that, while it does its job (detecting weapons and so forth), doesn’t show off your nude body to the leering airport screeners.

The new scanner will undergo proper laboratory tests this week.

The full-on “naked scanner” is already in use in other European countries such as the Netherlands.

Also, Germany-Netherlands make a fine football rivalry. Three cheers for random, tangentially related information!

Apple sends baseless takedown notice to hackers discussing iTunesDB code

Devin Coldewey — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:50:51 +0000

It’s no secret that Apple wants everyone to use iTunes, especially to sync with their iPod. I personally can’t stand iTunes and prefer Winamp, and many others share my view but have enjoyed Apple hardware. Some more code-savvy people than myself have in years past determined how to read and write to the proprietary iTunesDB file, allowing non-Apple software to sync with iPods.

Apple countered by encrypting the file, which encryption was cracked before two days were out. They’ve now re-encrypted it, and some folks at BluWiki have been discussing how to once again get at the information to allow third-party programs to be able to sync. At least, until Apple sent them a takedown notice citing DMCA laws.

Leaving aside the layman’s issue of “why didn’t they do this years ago if it’s so illegal,” anyone who knows the DMCA can immediately see that this notice is total bull. Fred Lohmann at the EFF appears to know somewhat more than myself, so I’ll let him explain in detail, but the gist is that:

The posts discussing the iTunes hash do not fall under any of the categories of restriction by the DMCA in the first place
Even if they did, the iTunesDB is not copyrighted material, it is created by iTunes much in the way a word processor might created a text document and as such is not subject to copyright concerns.
Even if it were, the DMCA allows for reverse engineering in order to create interoperability among devices
And even if it didn’t, the DMCA doesn’t outlaw dissemination of information that could lead to circumvention of DRM.

Perhaps it’s just an overzealous lawyer throwing Apple’s weight around, but really, how could they blow it so badly? What the people at BluWiki are doing is not only perfectly legal, but helpful for consumers who prefer a different setup for their media player. It looks to me like a rather spiteful move by Apple legal, and although I’m sure it didn’t come down from the Steve to letter-bomb some innocent wiki, I’m guessing this news will make it up to him — and his Steveness will certainly be displeased.

Judge: Papermaster could cause “irreparable harm” to IBM at Apple

Devin Coldewey — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:20:43 +0000

When this legal melee began earlier this month, I guessed that the judge was simply taking IBM at its word and ordering Papermaster to stop work essentially at their whim. Well, you can’t blame me for underestimating the Judicial Branch, can you? Recently revealed records show that the judge had pretty solid reasoning for believing Papermaster was a serious threat to IBM in his new position at Apple, citing Apple’s interest in the man’s specific knowledge of microprocessors and the history between Apple and the Power processors to which Papermaster is related.

God, that’s all a bit dry, isn’t it? But it increases my faith in the court where this thing is being addressed; it also gives weight to IBM’s side of the argument — a non-comp agreement that Papermaster says is too broad. Unfortunately, his complaint may be a little too after-the-fact for the judge to consider it worthwhile.

I wish we had flashier legal issues to talk about, but all the ones I mention here aren’t quite as public. So, Papermaster it is!

Cellphone jammers come under scrutiny in Canada

Nicholas Deleon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:30:57 +0000

We can jokingly say things like “buy a cellphone jammer to silence those annoying people on the bus” but that would be irresponsible. Quite irresponsible, it turns out, as criminals are now using such devices to impede law enforcement efforts.

It happened last month in Canada. Two Mounties had pulled over a car, and as they approached to car their radios went out. It turns out that the two guys inside the pulled over car had turned out one of those $200 eBay cellphone jammers, putting the officers at unnecessary risk.

This is a good time to remind y’all that using cellphone jammers is illegal in the U.S and most other places. In fact, a first time offender faces up to a $1,000 fine for using a jammer in the U.S.

Seems to me that an iPod is a much cheaper way to avoid hearing a fellow commuter’s conversation. And anyone who uses a cellphone at a restaurant should be promptly shown the door.

Kodak suing Samsung and LG over patent infringement

Devin Coldewey — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:30:55 +0000

Good lord, sir. There are so many lawsuits about that you can’t swing a cat without hitting a lawyer. IBM is suing Papermaster, Papermaster is suing IBM, Apple and Psystar are suing each other, the US is suing LCD makers, Spansion is suing Samsung, and god knows what else just from the last couple weeks has escaped my memory.
And now Kodak is getting in on the feeding frenzy, and is suing Samsung and LG for undisclosed damages, saying their mobile phone cameras infringe on Kodak patents in some way. It’s a bit fuzzy right now, but I’d guess that Kodak pretty much has any sensor-related stuff locked down. Without knowing any of the details, I’m guessing LG and Samsung are going to cough up.

Papermaster countersues IBM – it’s getting nasty!

Devin Coldewey — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:13:56 +0000

Papermaster doin’ it for his self! Well, his lawyers are helping. They’ve produced a somewhat scattershot countersuit against IBM, which if you don’t remember, sued the man for supposedly breaching a non-competition agreement in his contract. Papermaster’s corner says that not only is the non-comp clause “unreasonably broad,” but the statute of limitations is “unreasonably lengthy” and even if that weren’t the case, it’s “unenforceable” due to it being a part of NY law and Papermaster himself being bound only by Texas and California law.

To be honest, it’s pretty dry. I’m think I’ll leave this one alone for a while.

The Papermaster saga continues: far from first choice, and IBM didn’t try that hard to keep him

Devin Coldewey — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:07:49 +0000

Yeah…a play on “Boston Legal” probably would have been better (and easier)
The ongoing drama between Apple and IBM in which would-be iPod and iPhone division head Mark Papermaster is charged with breaching a non-competition contract with IBM is getting more complicated. On the Apple side, it’s no great surprise to find out that he was considered rather a “long shot” in terms of everything but his technical knowledge. However, the search for an iPod head had been going on for so long that they were starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel — or maybe it’s more charitable to say they were reaching the bottom of the cream and getting to the rest of the crop. At any rate, they offered him the job, which he decided to take. That’s when things get interesting.

IBM didn’t object to Papermaster leaving when he announced it, only saying they were sorry so see him go. They offered him two separate pay raises over a week, both of which he declined, and only after that did they bring up a somewhat obscure document raising the issue of non-competition. IBM maintains that Papermaster could use his general knowledge of IBM and specific knowledge of a few products to compete with his former employer from his future position.

It seems that IBM’s position was, first, to appear amiable. It’s likely that the people Papermaster talked to suspected a non-comp clause was around somewhere but didn’t want to go out on a limb right away. So they offered him a raise off the bat just to see if he’d come back, then when he didn’t they started pushing paper. Once they found something, they made another, better offer, in case he was on the fence and they’d undershot his price the first time around. When he refused again they essentially said “We didn’t want to have to bring this up, but…” and out comes the non-comp. From the way it’s described, it sounds pretty shaky: Apple is in the same column as IBM in some salary comparison list, it looks like. Not exactly firm legal ground considering their previous behavior; if Apple were clearly in competition with IBM in Papermaster’s areas of expertise, it would probably be a little more explicit in his contract.

IBM has thrown a bunch of consequences in Papermaster’s direction, and Apple has similarly lobbed a few counter-compensations. It’s turning into quite a little fracas! Still, clearly not all the evidence is on the table yet and too much speculation at this point may be silly. There is more information at the source article at Apple Insider, but more should be coming up in the next week.

LG, Sharp, and Chunghwa nailed for LCD price-fixing

Devin Coldewey — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:51:28 +0000

Such shameful conduct! It looks like from 2001 to 2006, LG, Sharp, and Chinese OEM Chunghwa were conspiring to keep the prices of LCD screens high and agreed on pricing floors to guarantee cash flow for everybody involved.

Over five years of first- and second-party sales (Dell and Apple were among the buyers), they must have run up quite a tab, although no one’s done the math yet. The companies have, however, been served with fines totalling $585 million between them ($400m from LG alone) — which amount, large as it appears, they can most certainly afford. Their reputation and business relationships may have been damaged severely by the legal proceedings, and perhaps in the coming OLED revolution, big retailers of LCDs may snub the companies, even though it’s likely every other supplier has similar predatory policies.

It seems, also, that the fine may be subject to change if it is discovered that the companies’ gains or the other companies’ losses exceed the original fine. Why, that would be terrible!

The full press release:

LG, Sharp, Chunghwa Agree to Plead Guilty, Pay Total of $585 Million in Fines for Participating in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracies

LG to Pay $400 Million Fine, Second Highest Antitrust Division Criminal
Fine Ever Imposed

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Three leading
electronics manufacturers – LG Display Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp. and Chunghwa
Picture Tubes Ltd. – have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $585
million in criminal fines for their roles in conspiracies to fix prices in
the sale of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, the Department of Justice
announced. Of the $585 million in fines, LG will pay $400 million, the
second highest criminal fine ever imposed by the Department’s Antitrust
Division.

Today’s charges were filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The
companies have agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust
investigation.

Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels are used
in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones, and other
electronic devices. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was
approximately $70 billion. Companies directly affected by the LCD
price-fixing conspiracies are some of the largest computer, television and
cellular telephone manufacturers in the world, including Apple, Dell and
Motorola.

“Today’s charges and criminal fines emphasize the commitment of the
Department of Justice to crack down on international cartels,” said
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

LG Display Co. Ltd, a South Korean corporation, and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, LG Display America Inc., a California company (LG), agreed to
plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy from September 2001 to June
2006 to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide. During the
conspiracy, LG Display Co. Ltd. was known as LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. (a
joint venture between LG Electronics and Philips Electronics) and LG
Display America Inc. was known as LG.Philips LCD America Inc.

Sharp Corp., a Japanese consumer electronics manufacturer, has agreed
to pay a $120 million fine for its participation in separate conspiracies
to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc. from April 2001 to
December 2006 for use in computer monitors and laptops; to Motorola Inc.
from fall 2005 to the middle of 2006 for use in Razr mobile phones; and to
Apple Computer Inc. from September 2005 to December 2006 for use in iPod
portable music players.

Chunghwa, a Taiwanese TFT-LCD panel manufacturer, has agreed to pay a
$65 million fine for its participation with LG and other unnamed
co-conspirators in a conspiracy from September 2001 to December 2006 to fix
the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide.

“These price-fixing conspiracies affected millions of American
consumers who use computers, cell phones and numerous other household
electronics every day,” said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division. “These convictions, and
the significant fines they carry, should send a clear message that the
Antitrust Division will vigorously investigate and prosecute illegal
cartels, regardless of where they are located.”

LG and Chunghwa are charged with carrying out the conspiracy by:

— Participating in meetings, conversations, and communications in
Taiwan, Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD
panels;

— Agreeing during those meetings, conversations and communications to
charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain pre-determined;

— Issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached;
and

— Exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels, for the purpose
of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices.

Sharp is charged with participating in three separate conspiracies, to
fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell, Motorola and Apple by:

— Participating in bilateral meetings, conversations, and
communications in Japan and the United States to discuss the prices of
TFT-LCD panels to be sold to Dell, Apple and Motorola;

— Agreeing during those bilateral meetings, conversations and
communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain pre-determined
levels to Dell, Apple and Motorola;

— Issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached;
and

— Exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels to be sold to
Dell, Apple and Motorola, for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing
adherence to the agreed-upon prices.

LG, Sharp and Chunghwa are each charged with price fixing in violation
of the Sherman Act. Each violation carries a maximum fine of $100 million
for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain
derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the
crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum
fine.

Jury: Samsung violated Pioneer’s plasma TV patents, has to pay $59 million

Nicholas Deleon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:00:05 +0000

A federal jury found yesterday that Samsung willfully infringed two of Pioneer’s patents covering plasma televisions. As such, the Korean electronics giant will have to cough up (“cough up” is the technical term, mind you) some $59 million, payable to Pioneer.

As you might expect, Samsung plans to appeal the ruling forever and ever.

Sorta interesting: a Japanese corporation taking a Korean corporation to an American court for redress. We’re so globalized!

France one step closer to kicking file sharers off the Internet

Nicholas Deleon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:20:10 +0000

French pirates may want to think twice about downloading that episode Entourage off the Pirate Bay. A new law just passed the Sénat that would cut file-sharers off the Internet. Those caught illegally sharing material, be it music, movies, software, or whatever else, will be warned, both by e-mail and regular mail. After two such warnings your connection is shut off.

Under the law, a new government body would be created to help patrol the France’s Internet use.

The law now has to be approved by the lower house of Parliament, the Assemblée nationale, which is directly elected by citizens.

There’s only one small problem with the proposed law: it directly conflicts with the wishes of all mighty Brussels, which has called such a measure—kicking people off the Internet for file-sharing—to be a violation of “civil liberties and human rights.”

Don’t mess with Brussels is the new Don’t mess with Texas.

Judge calls out RIAA lawyers for bankrupting families

Nicholas Deleon — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:11:49 +0000

Go ahead and read this court transcript. It’s a 35-page PDF of the London-Sire Records. Does 1-4 copyright infringement case. It’s the same song and dance you’re all familiar with: RIAA catches someone downloading a song, which entitles it to thousands upon thousands of dollars in remuneration. Only this time, the presiding judge, Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, actually recognizes the complete absurdity of suing these people so much money for downloading music. Some highlights:

• “There’s a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources. The law is also overwhelmingly on their side.”

• “I can’t say this is a situation that is a goof situation or a fair situation, it is , however, the situation.”

• “You know, it seems to me that counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that are fighting people without lawyers, to fully understand that, more than just how do we serve them, but just to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and that it’s terribly critical that you stop it…”

• “…that it was his son who did the downloading and his son has no assets, you’re getting water from a stone. What are you pursuing here?”

The whole thing is pretty tremendous.

Here’s what I don’t understand about all of this. Let’s say the RIAA catches me downloading a song. All of a sudden I owe them several thousand dollars for copyright infringement, right? Now, let’s say I walk into Best Buy and physically steal a copy of an album. Do I owe the RIAA thousands of dollars in that scenario? Because if copyright infringement=theft and theft=small fine, why is the RIAA suing these people for thousands of dollars? How does that make sense?

via Slashdot