To find out more about how the Adler Law Group can help your business identify risk and issues related to intellectual property ownership, corporation or LLC formation, or just assess risk associated with your business, contact us for a free, no-obligation consultation by emailing David @ adler-law.com, visiting our web site www.adler-law.com, or calling toll free to (866) 734-2568.
The case of Clarity Software, LLC v. Financial Independence Group, LLC is a great example the serious, negative consequences to intellectual property ownership when business owners and legal counsel fail to ensure that tasks are completed.
The short version is that the creator of computer software, Vincent Heck, sold the copyright in his software to settle a debt to a creditor, Eric Wallace, who intended to form Clarity Software, LLC to own and distribute the software. The lawsuit was for infringement of the copyright in the software.
As they say, “the devil is in the details.” In this case, the detail that became a devil, and ultimately prevented Wallace from enforcing a copyright in the software, was the fact that Clarity Software, LLC was never properly formed and therefore lacked standing to sue for infringement.
Forgive me for employing yet another trite phrase, but “truth is often stranger than fiction.” The Defendant proved that a veritable comedy of errors had occurred resulting in no record of the formation, including 1) the Department of State of Pennsylvania losing the certificate of organization, along with all records of the submission and filing of the certificate of organization, 2) the Plaintiff’s bank (PNC Bank) losing its copy certificate of organization provided when Wallace opened a bank account (even though PNC Bank still had the signature card completed when the account was opened), and 3) Wallace, himself a former President of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants, losing his copy of the certificate of organization and all records of his communications with his attorney.
Defendant successfully moved for summary judgment based on its argument that Plaintiff did not own the copyright at issue in the litigation since it was not properly organized as a Pennsylvania limited liability company and never acquired valid ownership of the copyright.
Hat tip to Pamela Chestek and her blog, Property Intangible, where she first wrote about this case October 13, 2014. The opinion and order can be found here: Clarity Software, LLC v. Financial Independence Group, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-1609-MRH (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014).
To find out more about how the Adler Law Group can help your business identify risk and issues related to intellectual property ownership, corporation or LLC formation, or just assess risk associated with your business, contact us for a free, no-obligation consultation by emailing David @ adler-law.com, visiting out web site www.adler-law.com, or calling toll free to (866) 734-2568..
Technology Continues to Test The Bounds of Copyright Law
The Internet is an unprecedented source of disruption. From retail services (e.g. Amazon) to media and entertainment, almost every industry has been forced to rethink its business model due to the accessibility, ubiquity and democratizing force of the Internet. Aereo was positioned to disrupt the traditional media distribution model by giving consumers greater control over what were otherwise “free” over-the-air transmissions.
The Aereo service was premised on the idea that consumers should be able to watch and record over-the-air broadcast television programming via the Internet. Major broadcast networks that owned the content made accessible through Aereo challenged the model on the grounds that Aereo was violating the exclusive “public performance” right guaranteed by the Copyright Act.
Copyright law provides copyright owners six exclusive rights. One of those rights is the exclusive right to publicly perform the copyrighted work. Because this right is a statutory construct, one must look to the statute to determine its meaning. To “perform” and to perform “publicly” means “to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display the work to a place … or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.”
While many reacted by asking whether the case would stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on start-ups, this case does highlight the increasing tension between technological advances and copyright law.
From a practical standpoint, one need not be alarmed about the impact of the decision on most types of innovation. For one thing, the Court went to some lengths to craft a reasonably narrow decision, which applies only to broadcast TV retransmitted over the Internet.
As with any type of innovation, there are different types of risk. On the one hand, there is technology risk: the risk that whatever technology is necessary for some business plan simply won’t work. On the other hand, there is legal risk, highlighted by the Aereo decision: the risk that the entrepreneur’s interpretation of some act or case law won’t ultimately prevail. That’s what happened to Aereo.
As an IP lawyer, I am somewhat perplexed. It is hard for me to understand why Aereo made such a bold move. However, at least the district court agreed with Aereo’s interpretation.
Oklahoma and Louisiana join Wisconsin and Tennessee in recent laws restricting access to applicants’ and employees’ personal online content by prospective and current employers. Adoption of Social Media platforms continues to grow as do new legal and business risks arise as well as state legislatures provide new rules, regulations and guidance. As state by state compliance requirements develop, businesses need to review frequently overlooked elements of key social media guidance, such as how to approach specific areas like Monitoring, Content Approval, Training and Information Security.
This latest round of bandwagon-jumping follows efforts by most other states that have addressed the issue. The key take-away is that business need to take a state-by-state approach to social media legal compliance.
Generally, most of these types of laws prohibit employers from requesting or requiring that applicants or employees disclose a username, password, or other means of authentication for their online accounts.
Employers should be on the lookout for laws that address whether an applicant or employee must accept a “friend” request, change privacy settings to permit access by the employer, or otherwise divulge personal online content.
Another area of concern is the definition of “personal,” “social media” and “account. ” these definitions vary and often cover far more than common notions of social media.
Some laws apply to any online account, including e-mail, instant messaging and media-sharing accounts. Some laws address the scope of use such as “exclusively for personal communications” as opposed to “business purposes of the employer” or “business-related communications.” This carve-out further narrows the scope of the Oklahoma and Louisiana laws.
While these laws generally prohibit adverse actions based based on a refusal to provide user name, password or other authentication information, each law should be scrutinized for broader prohibitions, such as those against penalizing or threatening to penalize an employee or applicant for refusing such requests.
Technology continues to evolve and so does the legal and regulatory environment. Businesses need to continually assess and address the risks created by new laws and new uses of tech in the workplace.
Contact us for a free consultation to learn what we can do to help your business navigate the ever-changing regulatory minefield. What you don’t know can hurt you. We are here to help you avoid getting hurt.
Do you work with start-up companies and need a basic understanding of the various intellectual property issues that can arise?
I will be co-presenting in this online seminar that will help you:
- understand the trademark and copyright problems your client may encounter with branding;
- learn how to protect your client’s branding once established;
- familiarize your practice with patents, including what they protect, timing, and strategies to prevent inadvertent loss of patent rights before filing the application;
- understand trade secrets and the importance of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements;
- recognize intellectual property issues relating to technology, including open source code and the cloud;
- establish a proactive approach toward intellectual property ownership between cofounders, employees, and vendors; understand business names, domain names, promotional issues, and website content concerns.
The program qualifies for 1.5 hours MCLE credit.
I would like to personally invite you to attend the upcoming Law Ed program titled, “Identifying Intellectual Property Issues in Start-Ups,” which I will be co-presenting via live webcast on Tuesday, May 27th.
Presented by the ISBA Business Advice and Financial Planning Section
Co-Sponsored by the ISBA Intellectual Property Section
Online marketing continues to evolve and affiliate marketing can be a great method of building brand awareness. Online marketers need to stay ahead of legal and regulatory compliance trends. This article looks at recent Federal Trade Commission (“FTC,” “Commission,” or “agency”) activity that impacts online marketing.
Given the lack of a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme, and the increasing awareness of deceptive marketing practices, it is not surprising that the FTC has ramped up enforcement efforts against entities not covered by existing, industry-specific federal regulations over the last decade. Notably, one company has defended itself against the FTC by challenging the FTC’s authority to pursue such broad enforcement.
The widely-watched case of FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp is not just about Cybersecurity.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just won the first major round of its fight with Wyndham Hotels over data security. However, the importance of the case has more to do with the FTC’s jurisdiction, challenged when Wyndham moved to dismiss the FTC’s case. Affirming the FTC’s broad jurisdiction, the federal judge overseeing the controversy noted that the case highlights “a variety of thorny legal issues that Congress and the courts will continue to grapple with for the foreseeable future.”
Affiliate Marketing: A Roadmap for Compliance: Text Message Marketing
The Commission is cracking down on affiliate marketers that allegedly bombard consumers with unwanted text messages in an effort to steer these consumers towards deceptive websites falsely promising “free” gift cards.
For example, in eight different complaints filed in courts around the United States, the FTC charged 29 defendants with collectively sending more than 180 million unwanted text messages to consumers, many of whom had to pay for receiving the texts. The messages promised consumers free gifts or prizes, including gift cards worth $1,000 to major retailers such as Best Buy, Walmart and Target.
By now, many in the Affiliate Marketing industry are familiar with the Legacy Learning Systems case. In March, 2011 the FTC settled charges against Legacy — which sells instructional DVDs — that Legacy represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, reviews of their products were endorsements reflecting the opinions of ordinary consumers or independent reviewers, when many of the favorable endorsements were posted by affiliate marketers who received a commission from Legacy for sales they generated.
Regardless of the form of affiliate marketing – email campaigns or text message campaigns – there are a couple key take-aways here.
First, identify and disclose a material connection between a product user or endorser and any other party involved in promoting the product. A “material connection” is a relationship that affects the credibility of an endorsement and wouldn’t be reasonably expected by consumers. See our article about complying with the endorsement guides here.
Second, set up and maintain a system to monitor and review affiliates’ representations and disclosures to ensure compliance. For example, Legacy looked at its top 50 revenue-generating affiliates at least once a month, visiting their sites to review their representations and disclosures. It has to be done in a way designed not to disclose to the affiliates that they’re being monitored.
Third, understand he requirements for conducting legally-compliant text message marketing. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service … or any service for which the called party is charged for the call. The prohibition on calls to cell phones applies to text messaging.
Privacy Law Update: California “Do Not Track”
Disclosures must explain:
1. If a web site operator allows other parties to use tracking technologies in connection with the site or service to collect certain user data over time and across sites and services; and
2. How it responds to browser “do not track” signals or other mechanisms designed to give consumers choice as to the collection of certain of their data over time and across sites and services
In addition, the “California Shine the Light Act” requires that companies (except non-profits and businesses with less than 20 employees) collecting broadly defined personal information from California consumers on or offline either: (a) give consumers a choice as to the sharing of that information with third parties (including affiliates) for direct marketing purposes; or (b) provide notice of, and maintain, a method by which consumers can annually obtain information on the categories of information disclosed the names and addresses of the recipients of that data, and a description of the recipients’ business.
If an e-commerce service offers tangible goods or services, or vouchers for them, to California consumers, it must give certain notices to consumers, including how they can file a complaint with the CA Department of Consumer Affairs.
Are you concerned about how to disclose how your service responds to “Do Not Track” signals or similar tools and settings, and whether third parties are permitted to collect personally identifiable information about consumer online activities over time and across different websites when a consumer uses that online service? We may be able to help. We can review your policies, your information gathering and sharing practices, and advise on whether there is room for improvement.
Please contact us for a no-fee consultation.
One of the key issues that must be examined when negotiating or drafting any contract is how the parties may get out of, or “terminate,” that contract. While many attorneys will rest on standard “termination for breach with notice and cure” language, the recent case of Powertech Tech. v. Tessera, Inc. demonstrates how artful drafting can put limitations on a party’s right to terminate. The Opinion in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case No. C 11-6121 can be found here.
Powertech and Tessera were parties to a patent license agreement, although the court’s reasoning does not seem limited to only those types of agreements. The license agreement allowed Powertech to use Tessera’s patents in exchange for payment of license fees.
The contract contained the following clause regarding termination for breach:
“Termination for Breach. Either party may terminate this Agreement due to the other party’s breach of this Agreement, such as failure to perform its duties, obligations, or responsibilities herein (including, without limitation, failure to pay royalties and provide reports as set forth herein). The parties agree that such breach will cause substantial damages to the party not in breach. Therefore, the parties agree to work together to mitigate the effect of any such breach; however, the non-breaching party may terminate this Agreement if such breach is not cured or sufficiently mitigated (to the non-breaching party’s satisfaction) within sixty (60) days of notice thereof.”
The court held that Powertech was not permitted to terminate a license agreement with Tessera for Tessera’s breach because Powertech itself was in breach of the agreement by its failure to pay royalties to Tessera.
Acknowledging Powertech’s argument that Tessera was itself in breach, that in and of itself did not give Powertech the right to terminate the contract. Only a “non-breaching” party may terminate the agreement. Said the court “[a]lthough the first sentence of the termination clause is broad – ‘Either party may terminate this Agreement due to the other party’s breach’ — the language of the clause as a whole makes clear that only a non-breaching party may terminate. Reading the clause as a whole, the court concluded “[t]he termination clause refers to a “breaching party” and a “non-breaching party” in every sentence after the first… [therefore]…the clause requires the party seeking to terminate for the other party’s purported breach to be substantially in compliance with its own obligations first.
The Powertech agreement’s termination clause is useful because it put conditions on a party’s ability to terminate the agreement even when the other party was in breach.
At the end of August, the California passed an amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act that will require commercial websites and services that collect personal data to disclose how they respond to Do Not Track signals from Web browsers.
AB 370, as introduced by California Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, requires a business that discloses a customer’s personal information to a third party for direct marketing purposes to provide the customer, within 30 days after the customer’s request, as specified, in writing or by e-mail the names and addresses of the recipients of that information and specified details regarding the information disclosed.
This bill, available here, would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would regulate online behavioral tracking of consumers.
Enacted by Congress in 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) builds upon existing computer fraud law (18 U.S.C. § 1030). Initially, the CFAA was intended to limit federal jurisdiction to cases “with a compelling federal interest-i.e., where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved or where the crime itself is interstate in nature.” Notably, the CFAA criminalized certain computer-related acts such as distribution of malicious software code, propagating denial of service attacks as well as trafficking in passwords and similar items. Recently, the CFAA has gained prominence as a bludgeon used to prosecute a wide-range of activities, some broadly labelled “hacking” and other stretching the boundaries of “unauthorized” computer access.
Two recently introduced bills, one by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the House and one by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in the Senate aim to amend the CFAA in hopes of ameliorating application of the CFAA to claims of breach of terms of service, employment agreements. Additionally, with the nickname “Aaron’s Law,” they also seek to limit what some see as the CFAA’s tendency to allow for overzealous prosecution that they claim characterized Aaron Swartz’s case.
In short the bills would amend the meaning of “exceeds authorized access,” changing it to “access without authorization,” which is defined to mean:
“to obtain information on a protected computer”;
“that the accesser lacks authorization to obtain”; and
“by knowingly circumventing one or more technological or physical measures that are designed to exclude or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining that information.”
For a well-documented discussion of the application and boundaries of the CFAA, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundations Legal Treatise on civil and criminal cases involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act here.
As businesses become ever more dependent on digital assets and systems, a working knowledge of the legal and regulatory framework that defines and protects those assets is paramount.
If you or your executive teams has questions about securing and protecting digital assets, please feel free to contact David M. Adler for a free consultation. LSGA advises a wide range of businesses on creating, protecting and leveraging digital assets as well as computer, data and information security and privacy.
Please tweet, comment on, and forward is article!
David M. Adler | Adler Law Group
300 Saunders Road, Suite 100
Riverwoods, Illinois 60015
Toll free Phone: (866) 734-2568
*2015 Illinois Super Lawyer http://bit.ly/gFfpAt