Tag:

court

Google-Oracle Java Infringement Case Gets New Life as Appeals Court Revives Claim

by Loknath Das March 28, 2018

written by Loknath Das

Google-Oracle Java Infringement Case Gets New Life as Appeals Court Revives Claim

A US appeals court on Tuesday resurrected a multi-billion dollar copyright case brought by Oracle Corp against Alphabet’s Google.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Google’s use of Oracle’s Java development platform to create the Android operating system was not protected under the fair-use provision of copyright law, reversing a 2016 jury verdict.

The court sent the case back to a US judge in San Francisco for a trial to determine how much compensation Google owes Oracle.

Oracle had previously sought $9 billion (roughly Rs. 58,000 crores) in damages.

“We are disappointed the court reversed the jury finding that Java is open and free for everyone,” Google spokesman Patrick Lenihan said in a statement. “This type of ruling will make apps and online services more expensive for users.”

“The Federal Circuit’s opinion upholds fundamental principles of copyright law and makes clear that Google violated the law,” said Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley in a statement. “This decision protects creators and consumers from the unlawful abuse of their rights.”

The closely watched case, which dates to 2010, involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programming language, which Google used to design the Android operating system that runs most of the world’s smartphones.

Oracle is seeking royalties for Google’s use of some of the Java language, while Google argues it should be able to use Java without paying a fee.

Annemarie Bridy, a professor of intellectual property at the University of Idaho College of Law, said in an interview the ruling could stifle software innovation by opening up developers to potential liability for copyright infringement.

“This is a ruling that could have a significant chilling effect on software developers,” she said, noting that they rely on computer code like Oracle’s to make apps communicate with each other.

Matthew Sarboraria, a vice president and associate general counsel at Oracle, said in an interview that such concerns were overblown.

Sarboraria said the ruling bolsters copyright protection in the software industry, ensuring that programmers have incentives to innovate.

“The sky is not falling,” he said. “The sky is firmly in place.”

[“source=gadgets.ndtv”]

March 28, 2018 0 comment

Internet

Facebook’s Virtual Reality Ambitions Could Be Threatened by Court Order

by Loknath Das October 28, 2017

written by Loknath Das

Facebook's Virtual Reality Ambitions Could Be Threatened by Court Order

Facebook Inc’s big ambitions in the nascent virtual reality industry could be threatened by a court order that would prevent it from using critical software code another company claims to own, according to legal and industry experts.

Last Thursday, video game publisher ZeniMax Media Incasked a Dallas federal judge to issue an order barring Facebook unit Oculus from using or distributing the disputed code, part of the software development kit that Oculus provides to outside companies creating games for its Rift VR headset.

A decision is likely a few months away, but intellectual property lawyers said ZeniMax has a decent chance of getting the order, which would mean Facebook faces a tough choice between paying a possibly hefty settlement or fighting on at risk of jeopardizing its position in the sector.

For now, Facebook is fighting on. Oculus spokeswoman Tera Randall said last Thursday the company would challenge a $500 million jury verdict on February 1 against Oculus and its co-founders Palmer Luckey and Brendan Iribe for infringing ZeniMax’s copyrighted code and violating a non-disclosure agreement.

Randall said Oculus would possibly file an appeal that would “allow us to put this litigation behind us.”

She did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

An injunction would require Oculus, which Facebook acquired for $3 billion in 2014, to stop distributing the code to developers or selling those games that use it.

Such a court order “would put a huge stumbling block in front” of Oculus, said Stephanie Llamas, an analyst with gaming market research firm SuperData. It would offer the company’s rivals in the new market, which include HTC, Sony Corp, Alphabet Inc and others an “important opportunity for them to become first movers.”

Sales of the Rift itself would not be barred, but Llamas, said a lack of available titles could hinder Facebook’s offering relative to HTC’s Vive headset and Sony’s PlayStation VR.

That market is relatively small at the moment – sales of VR hardware and software totaled $2.7 billion in 2016 – and mainly limited to gaming. But Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has predicted the technology “will become a part of daily life for billions of people,” revolutionizing social media, entertainment and medicine.

SuperData says the VR market will be worth $37 billion by 2020. Likewise, investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald last year issued a report predicting VR would account for 10 percent of Facebook revenue in four years’ time.

ZeniMax’s lawsuit arose from 2012 correspondence between Luckey and famed video game developer John Carmack, creator of the Doom and Quake series and then a ZeniMax employee. Luckey signed a non-disclosure agreement with ZeniMax covering his communications with Carmack.

Carmack joined Oculus in 2013 as chief technology officer. ZeniMax sued in 2014, claiming Carmack’s work while its employee was crucial to the Rift. At trial, Facebook said ZeniMax concocted its claims because of “sour grapes” over missing the VR trend.

Zuckerberg testified that “the idea that Oculus products are based on someone else’s technology is just wrong.”

The jury decided Oculus had not stolen trade secrets but had infringed ZeniMax’s intellectual property. It also said Oculus breached the non-disclosure agreement.

IP lawyers said the judge would consider factors such as whether ZeniMax continues to be harmed and whether money is sufficient compensation.

Edward Naughton, a Boston-based copyright lawyer with Brown Rudnick, said ZeniMax has a strong argument because its technology continues to be used without its permission and the jury’s verdict does not compensate for that.

“I think they have a pretty good shot here,” Naughton said.

Mitchell Shelowitz, a copyright lawyer in New York, noted that the non-disclosure agreement explicitly stated ZeniMax would be entitled to an injunction in the event its terms were violated.

Not all lawyers agree ZeniMax has the stronger position. Chicago-based IP lawyer Joshua Rich said he thinks Facebook has a good chance to repel the injunction by arguing that ZeniMax is not being harmed by the sale of the Oculus products because it is not direct competitor.

If Facebook can get past the injunction fight, the calculus could change, said Naughton. Facebook may believe it has strong arguments on appeal or, because it has so much cash on hand, it may hope to wear ZeniMax down to the point where it settles on favorable terms.

“Facebook has deep pockets,” said Naughton. “That allows them to put their opponent into litigation fatigue.”

[“Source-gadgets.ndtv”]

October 28, 2017 0 comment

Internet

Blue Whale Challenge: Delhi High Court Sends Notice to Facebook, Google Over Centre’s Direction

by Loknath Das August 23, 2017

written by Loknath Das

Blue Whale Challenge: Delhi High Court Sends Notice to Facebook, Google Over Centre's Direction

HIGHLIGHTS

HC has sought response from Facebook, Google, Yahoo on Blue Whale game
Blue Whale challenge links/websites have been asked to be taken down
This game requires the player to commit suicide as the last game task

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the response of Facebook, Google and Yahoo on a plea to direct them to take down the links of Blue Whale challenge, an Internet-based suicide challenge that has been allegedly linked to several deaths of children worldwide.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar also issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police asking them to inform about the steps they have taken in this regard.

ALSO SEEBlue Whale Game: What Is It in 6 Points

While issuing notice to the Indian units of the Internet giants, the bench also directed them to file a status report with regard to the steps they have taken in pursuance to Centre’s direction to ban the online challenge called the ‘Blue Whale Challenge’.

The plea, filed by advocate Gurmeet Singh, has sought immediate directions to restrain the Internet firms from uploading any material pertaining to the challenge challenge, citing cases of suicide by children in India and abroad.

The court listed the matter for August 28 by when it has sought the responses from all the authorities.

Meanwhile, Delhi Police counsel Sanjoy Ghose informed the court that the cyber security cell was active in this regard and the Centre has also issued a direction.

On August 15, the Ministry of Electronics and IT had directed the Internet majors – Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Microsoft and Yahoo – to immediately remove the links of the deadly Blue Whale Challenge.

The sudden popularity of the lethal online challenge – Blue Whale Challenge, in which the final task requires the player to commit suicide, had forced the government to issue the directions to the Internet firms to remove the links of the dangerous challenge.

The high court had on August 17 expressed concern over children allegedly committing suicide while playing the challenge.

The Blue Whale Challenge is reportedly a suicide challenge in which the player is given certain tasks to complete over a period of 50 days and the final task leads him or her to commit suicide. The player is also asked to share photos after finishing each challenge.

More than six children across India in the age group of 12-19 years have taken their lives playing this challenge within a span of two weeks, reports have said.

Deaths of teenagers have also been reported from other countries including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile and Italy, the PIL has said.

[“Source-gadgets.ndtv”]

August 23, 2017 0 comment

Tech Update

UPDATE 1-Tech companies urge U.S. Supreme Court to boost cellphone privacy

by Loknath Das August 17, 2017

written by Loknath Das

WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) – More than a dozen high technology companies and the biggest wireless operator in the United States, Verizon Communications Inc, have called on the U.S. Supreme Court to make it harder for government officials to access individuals’ sensitive cellphone data.

The companies filed a 44-page brief with the court on Monday night in a high-profile dispute over whether police should have to get a warrant before obtaining data that could reveal a cellphone user’s whereabouts.

Signed by some of Silicon Valley’s biggest names, including Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Snap and Alphabet’s Google, the brief said that as individuals’ data is increasingly collected through digital devices, greater privacy protections are needed under the law.

“That users rely on technology companies to process their data for limited purposes does not mean that they expect their intimate data to be monitored by the government without a warrant,” the brief said.

The justices agreed last June to hear an appeal by Timothy Carpenter, who was convicted in 2013 in a series of armed robberies of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Ohio and Michigan. Federal prosecutors helped place him near several of the robberies using “cell site location information” obtained from his wireless carrier.

Carpenter claims that without a warrant from a court, such data amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. But last year a federal appeals court upheld his convictions, finding that no warrant was required.

Carpenter’s case will be argued before the court some time after its new term begins in October.

The case comes amid growing scrutiny of the surveillance practices of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies and concern among lawmakers across the political spectrum about civil liberties and police evading warrant requirements.

Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing Carpenter, said the companies’ brief represented a “robust defense of their customers’ privacy rights in the digital age.”

Verizon’s participation in the brief was important, he added, given that it receives, like other wireless carriers, thousands of requests for cellphone location records every year from law enforcement. The requests are routinely granted.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending current law enforcement procedures in the case, declined to comment on Tuesday.

Civil liberties lawyers have said police need “probable cause,” and therefore a warrant, to avoid constitutionally unreasonable searches.

In their brief, the companies said the Supreme Court should clarify that when it comes to digital data that can reveal personal information, people should not lose protections against government intrusion “simply by choosing to use those technologies.” (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Dan Grebler)

[“Source-businessinsider”]

August 17, 2017 0 comment