In July, the Fourth Circuit weighed in on the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in
WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller and found that the CFAA is not broad enough to impose liability on an employee who has
lawful access to his employer's electronic information but later
misuses that information - such as by stealing the employer's electronic
trade secrets. In taking this narrow approach to the CFAA and siding
with the Second and Ninth Circuits, the Fourth
Circuit has widened the circuit split over whether the CFAA applies to
disloyal employees who violate the computer use policies of their
employer. In this Legal Alert, Audra Dial and John Moye discuss the
Fourth Circuit's recent ruling and its impact for employers
drafting computer use policies as well as companies pursuing trade
secret claims through the CFAA.
See kilpatrickstockton.com
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
United States of America v Dotcom
United States of America v Dotcom [2012] NZHC 2076 (16 August 2012)
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/2076.html
New Cyber Data Laws
See Cyber Data Law story.
"NEW laws will allow authorities to collect and monitor Australians' internet records, including their web-browsing history, social media activity and emails. But the laws, which will specifically target suspected cyber criminals, do not go as far as separate proposed laws designed to retain every Australian internet user's internet history for two years in the name of national security. Under the laws passed yesterday, Australian state and federal police will have the power to compel telcos and internet service providers to retain the internet records of people suspected of cyber-based crimes, including fraud and child pornography. Only those records made after the request will be retained, but law enforcement agencies will be prevented from seeing the information until they have secured a warrant."
"NEW laws will allow authorities to collect and monitor Australians' internet records, including their web-browsing history, social media activity and emails. But the laws, which will specifically target suspected cyber criminals, do not go as far as separate proposed laws designed to retain every Australian internet user's internet history for two years in the name of national security. Under the laws passed yesterday, Australian state and federal police will have the power to compel telcos and internet service providers to retain the internet records of people suspected of cyber-based crimes, including fraud and child pornography. Only those records made after the request will be retained, but law enforcement agencies will be prevented from seeing the information until they have secured a warrant."
Publicity Monster
An interesting story about a company that promised to improve your Google rankings.
See Publicity Monster Investigated.
See Publicity Monster Investigated.
Apple beats Samsung in Court - First Reactions
Apple won one of the largest patent damages awards against Samsung. First reactions. News Report. Will this impact the Australian court cases?
Copyright and the Digital Economy Issues Paper
The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) released the Issues Paper for its current inquiry into Copyright and the Digital Economy.
Headed by Professor Jill McKeough (Dean of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney), the review is focusing on the suitability of current exceptions and statutory licences in the evolving digital marketplace.
See Note here.
Paypal Over Zealous and Uncaring?
From The New York Times:
Some PayPal Users Criticize Antifraud Measures Some of the payment service’s users say the company needlessly freezes their accounts when large transactions are involved. http://nyti.ms/QuD0EC
Smirnoff Responsible for Comments of Users on Facebook
“The Board considered that the Facebook
site of an advertiser is a marketing communication tool over which the
advertiser has a reasonable degree of control and could be considered to
draw the attention of
a segment of the public to a product in a manner calculated to promote
or oppose directly or indirectly that product. The Board determined that
the provisions of the Code apply to an advertiser’s Facebook page. As a
Facebook page can be used to engage with
customers, the Board further considered that the Code applies to the
content generated by the advertisers as well as material or comments
posted by users or friends.”
See Diageo Australia
See Diageo Australia
Computer Patent - Patentable Subject Matter
A system claim which includes as a limitation a computer to perform
steps in a method is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C.
§101
as a claim to an abstract idea because the computer functions solely as
an obvious mechanism to solve a problem quickly, the Federal Circuit
held July 26, 2012.
Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), Fed. Cir., No. 2011-1467, 7/26/12.
The asserted patents are directed to systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts. The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court summary judgment that the patents are ineligible for patent protection because the claimed computer components are no more than objects that facilitate the operation of claimed methods directed to an abstract idea. It held that a machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.
To read the Court's opinion in this case, click here.
The asserted patents are directed to systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts. The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court summary judgment that the patents are ineligible for patent protection because the claimed computer components are no more than objects that facilitate the operation of claimed methods directed to an abstract idea. It held that a machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.
To read the Court's opinion in this case, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...