|
|
|
Chinese court seeking to mediate iPad dispute
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/04/30 09:26
|
A Chinese court is mediating between Apple Inc. and the Chinese company challenging its right to use the iPad trademark, seeking to get the companies to settle an awkward standoff over the issue.
The Guangdong High Court in southern China, is seeking to arrange a settlement, said Ma Dongxiao, a lawyer for Proview Electronics Co. The court on Feb. 29 began hearing Apple's appeal of lower court ruling that favored Proview in the trademark dispute.
It is likely that we will settle out of court. The Guangdong High Court is helping to arrange it and the court also expects to do so, Ma said Monday.
China has sought to showcase its determination to protect trademarks and other intellectual property, but with hundreds of thousands employed in the assembly of Apple's iPhones and iPads is unlikely to want to disrupt the company's production and marketing in China. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/02/21 10:07
|
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in custody as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,' Ginsburg said in her dissent. Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY appeals court orders NJ programmer's acquittal
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/02/17 11:04
|
A federal appeals court on Friday reversed the conviction of a former Goldman Sachs programmer on charges he stole computer code, ordering an acquittal in a case that tested the boundaries of what can be considered a crime as companies seek to protect their intellectual property from competitors.
The unusually speedy mandate from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will result in freedom for Sergey Aleynikov, of North Caldwell, N.J. He has been in prison since he was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison. He was convicted in December 2010 of stealing trade secrets and transporting stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments on Thursday, but the judges gave no indication that they would reverse the lower court hours later with a terse, one-paragraph order. The 2nd Circuit said it would issue a written ruling in due course to explain its decision.
Aleynikov's attorney, Kevin Marino, said he spoke with his client Friday. He said Aleynikov reacted by concluding: There is justice in the world.
I could not be happier, Marino said. It's justice because Sergey Aleynikov did not commit either of the crimes with which he was charged. The government's attempt to stretch this criminal federal statute beyond all recognition resulted in a grave injustice that put Sergey Aleynikov in prison for a year.
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit on Thursday, Marino called it ridiculous and preposterous that his client was facing eight years in prison because he was found to have information that was not a product that Goldman Sachs sold in interstate and foreign commerce. A prosecutor had asked the court to uphold the conviction, saying protection of trade secrets was the only way companies could retain their technological advantages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EU court: Web sites need not check for IP breaches
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/02/16 09:58
|
A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal trading of music and other copyrighted material.
The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.
It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.
In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.
SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.
Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court rules for Ohio festival free speech
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/02/13 10:21
|
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of two Christians who say their free speech rights were violated at a southwest Ohio corn festival.
A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel ruled unanimously Monday that a policy against solicitation at the annual Sweet Corn Festival was too broad, and unconstitutional. The panel reversed a federal judge's ruling.
The case stemmed from the summer 2009 festival in the Dayton suburb of Fairborn, Ohio. Plaintiffs Tracy Bays and Kerrigan Skelly planned to convey their religious beliefs among festival-goers, and Bays began walking through the park with a sandwich board sign with Christian messages. After encountering opposition from a festival worker and officials, they left.
They sued in 2010. The Christian legal aid group Alliance Defense Fund argued their appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
