Friday, January 31, 2003

One of the better discussions of the outcome in the RIAA case involving a subpoena to Verizon: http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/j31verizon.html 11:16:11 PM    comment []

When something like the Slammer worm hits, what is the obligation to talk about it when it affects your company? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/technology/circuits/30secu.html?ex=1044913024&ei=1&en=6f339d225dc8ce8a 11:02:55 PM    comment []

Thanks to Marylaine Block for bringing this to our attention: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html Lawrence Lessig offers an ingenious proposal for speeding the passage of infrequently used copyrighted documents into the public domain. 10:59:29 PM    comment []

January 31, 2003's Wall Street Journal contained an article discussing the possible breakup of AOL Time Warner. The WSJ described Warner records as hurting due to music piracy. It makes you wonder. In other industries, when the executives say the customers don't buy enough of the product, the executives don't go to Congress. Unless of course, it's steel that's the product. Why does the WSJ buy the record industry line? Why isn't the problem said to be the maturing of the CD music business or the aging of the population or failure to promote new groups effectively or poor choice of recording artists or runaway costs? Why is it here that the record industry blames the customer? In most industries, when the product isn't selling as well as management hopes, management gets busy and tries to sell more. Or, the board of directors changes the management to those who will sell more. The record industry is different, however. And the WSJ believes the record industry. Why is that? 10:57:23 PM    comment []

Seems like a good litigation strategy. It might well be true. I hope Sharman Networks has the finances to fight it effectively, now that they started it. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-982344.html?tag=fd_top http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-kazaa28jan28001443,0,2705239.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dtechnology http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030128/ap_wo_en_po/na_fin_us_internet_music_trial_3 10:50:24 PM    comment []

Copyright owners are going after the network operators that foster sharing of music. In the UK, as well as in the US. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1043457934896 10:32:48 PM    comment []

Is this a good place to find the white papers you need? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1043457941356 9:28:01 PM    comment []

Is this the same as or different from the case where the software vendor sells software that permits a worm to damage lots of information stored in a warehouse? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1043457941356 I'm not the only who wonders about this. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2909857,00.html Slammer was extremely fast-moving. The full analysis is available at http://www.caida.org/analysis/security/sapphire/ http://www.silicondefense.com/sapphire/ http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/sapphire/ Thanks to SANS Newsbites: Attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against Tri-West Healthcare after hard drives containing personal information about more than 500,000 were stolen. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and asks that Tri-West pay for monitoring the credit reports of all those affected by the theft for the next 20 years. http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=1105006 http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0130triwest30.html Damages sought in this lawsuit are not based on actual use of the stolen information, but rather for the cost of monitoring credit reports for years in the future. If the class is certified and the court holds in favor of plaintiffs, the price of carelessness in protecting client's and employee's information could rise substantially. 9:26:08 PM    comment []

Daubert still rules: http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/98_1393.htm http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/jan97/95-1504.html http://www.ipo.org/2003/IPCourts/Micro_v_Lextron.htm Thanks to BNA: An expert witness's testimony on patent damages was properly allowed under the "Daubert" framework for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds. Affirming the trial court's refusal to exclude the expert testimony, the appellate court finds the trial court's role as a "gatekeeper" did not preclude the opportunity to rebut the expert's damages theory. The court also holds that the expert's testimony on non-infringing substitutes was consistent with the rule in "Grain Processing. " "Micro Chemical Inc. v. Lextron Inc." . . . Page 296 http://ippubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/ptc.nsf/is/a0a6j7n7g0 (subscription required) 9:23:37 PM    comment []

Is this woman really a cynic, or just a critic? http://www.writenews.com/mediacynic/ 9:18:53 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Noel D. Humphreys.