Dec 25, 2014
Happy Holidays and Best Wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year! :)
-Meg
seen from Netherlands
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
Happy Holidays and Best Wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year! :)
-Meg
Happy Thanksgiving!!
photo adapted from “Happy Thanksgiving everyone!" by Satya Murthy which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! No matter how you spend the holiday, I hope you find some time to relax and enjoy the day. This year, I'm thankful to be celebrating yet another Thanksgiving with all of you! Thanks again for all of your support during technoLAWgical's first year in business! :)
For a little light reading: lets flash back to last year's Thanksgiving post about two identity thieves who were arrested after posting a photo of their food on Instagram. It's a fun story that will remind you not only to watch what you eat...but to watch what you post online!
Click here and read on: TBT: “HAVE YOUR STEAK AND TWEET IT TOO” HOW TWO IDENTITY THIEVES GOT ARRESTED USING INSTAGRAM
Happy Thanksgiving!
-Meg
Throwback Thursday: technoLAWgical Turns 1!
It’s hard to believe it, but 1 year ago, I ventured out into the unchartered waters of becoming a solo practitioner and technoLAWgical was born. I was scared to make the jump at first, but I’m so happy that I did. This year has been one of the warmest and most incredible times of growth for myself and for my business. I want to personally thank all of you from the bottom of my heart for making this first year at technoLAWgical such a memorable one.
photo adapted from “Birthday Cake" by Theresa Thompson which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License
This Thursday, let’s throwback to all of the amazing highlights I’ve encountered over the first year in the life of technoLAWgical.
Over the past year:
I started my technoLAWgical® solo law practice, where I continue to serve startups & entrepreneurs in many aspects of technology and intellectual property law.
I wrote about some incredibly geeky legal concepts on my firm’s blog, including:
Breaking Bad & Trademarks
The Legend of Zelda & Domain Disputes
The Star Wars Kid & Cyberbullying
A whole week of tech law themed-Valentines Day posts; and even
The month-long (and often times hilarious) LAWctober series.
I was a contributing author & editor of two nationally-published legal texts.
I was a featured speaker for some of the most cutting-edge CLE programs in the nation; and
I taught online for not one but TWO incredible universities over the course of the past year where I was able to spread my knowledge of cyberlaw and cybersecurity to the next generation of lawyers and technologists.
With all of these accomplishments from last year, I have big shoes to fill in year two!
Thank you, readers, for not only embracing the “geeky side” of the law, but for also joining in and following me throughout this incredible year. While being a solo practitioner isn’t always the easiest, I feel so fortunate to know that I have so many faithful readers, followers, students and clients who make me so happy to work in a profession that I absolutely love.
As I blow out the first candle for technoLAWgical this year, I can only wish that next year will be just as rewarding and amazing as this first one has been. I’m looking forward to serving you all in the years to come! Thanks again for all of your support!
--Meg
Ewe have to be kidding me: Bo Peep and Burning "Sheep" Sue Johnson and Johnson for Product Liability
photo adapted from “Mary's Lamb” by Playingwithbrushes which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License
What would Halloween (or a Halloween-themed blog series) be without costumes? I have friends who, to this day, take the entire year to come up with some of the most impressive and painstakingly detailed getups I’ve ever seen. I, for one, was never an active crafter, so my options were (sadly) always store-bought.
My crafty costuming connoisseurs out there will appreciate a story about one Halloween costume project that went horribly, horribly wrong. One so wrong, in fact, that it ended with a products liability lawsuit.
Our story takes us back to the early 1980’s. Frank and Sue Ferlito, a husband and wife, dressed up as the famous fairytale duo: Little Bo Peep and her sheep*. For the sheep costume, Mrs. Ferlito put her DIY skills to work using long underwear, Elmer’s Glue, and cotton batting (manufactured by Johnson and Johnson) to make the costume. According to the opinion, Mr. Ferlito was head-to-toe in the cotton batting:
At the party, Mr. Ferlito was ‘itching’ for a cigarette. He and his wife left the party, and in a few clicks of a butane lighter, the flame accidentally caught the cotton batting on Mr. Ferlito’s sleeve. In seconds, the lamb costume was on fire. By the time they could put the costume out, Mr. Ferlito suffered burns that covered almost one-third of his body. According to the appeal, Mr. Ferlito underwent several surgeries to correct the damage from the fire.
After such a horrific happenstance, Bo Peep and her Sheep decided to sue Johnson and Johnson for products liability. Their claim? That Johnson and Johnson failed to warn them on the packaging that the cotton batting was as flammable as they discovered at the Halloween party. (Yes, really.)
In the original case, a jury awarded the Ferlitos $620,000 ($550,000 for Mr. Ferlito, and $70,000 for Mrs. Ferlito, respectively). Shortly after, a new trial was ordered, and the district court set aside the large sum. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit was still not convinced, and the case was extinguished. The couple could not prove that a flammability warning on the package for the cotton batting would have changed their actions on that fateful night. Unfortunately for the couple, with products liability, this was a critical component of winning the case.
According to the opinion, “[Mr. Ferlito] knew that cotton batting burned but emphasized that he did not know ‘how it burned’. His wife, who made the costume, also knew that cotton could burn, “[b]ut not burn that fast.” Additionally, Mr. Ferlito admitted that he ignored warning labels on his cigarettes, and was distracted by others in Halloween costumes outside when he went to light his cigarette.
In the end, the court didn’t decide whether a warning label was needed on the cotton batting and saved that question for another day. In this instance, the risk was obvious by the characteristics of the product.
So, creative costume crafters: be careful this Halloween!
Stay tuned for more exciting #LAWctober posts every Friday during the month of October! If you’re just joining us now, check out my earlier posts below:
- Jealousy. Murder. Siri?-- http://goo.gl/ziGl00
- The Devil Made Me Sue It!-- http://goo.gl/1eMMI7
*There is actually conflicting information in the original opinion and the appeal. The original opinion reports that the couple was “Mary and her little lamb,” on appeal…”Little Bo Peep and her Sheep.” Take your pick.
Whether you're enjoying a barbecue with friends, watching fireworks, or just having a relaxing day off...technoLAWgical wishes you a very Happy 4th of July!
Legal Brief: Supreme Court Rules on 2 Important Tech Law Cases
photo adapted from “Abstract Acrylic Icon - Smartphone” and "Abstract Acrylic Icon - Film Strip" by Nicolas Raymond which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
If you didn’t see the news, Wednesday, June 25 was a big day for privacy and technology law. The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) ruled on two pivotal cases that greatly shape the way we legally encounter technology.
Want to impress your friends with your knowledge of these cutting edge issues in law? Here’s what you need to know:
1. Want to Search My Cellphone? Get A Warrant! (Riley v California)
photo adapted from “Abstract Acrylic Icon - Smartphone” by Nicolas Raymond which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
What happened?
The police arrested a man after finding loaded firearms in his car during a traffic stop. As a result of his arrest, his cellphone was confiscated and searched. The cellphone search revealed incriminating evidence that led the police to charge the man with additional criminal charges.
What Was the Problem?
The police didn't get a warrant (which is a fancy term for a document granting official permission) to search the man’s cellphone, and the man felt that he was entitled to his privacy on the device.
The Result:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an arrested person has the right to privacy for the information in his cellphone. Cellphones contain intimate information surrounding a person’s life, and so police must go through the required, governmental formalities to access this information.
How This Affects Us?
This is a very significant case for law enforcement practices and privacy. For the first time in history, we have a definitive answer as to how private our information is treated on our cellphones. Traditionally, courts disagreed with whether an arrested person has privacy in his cellphone information. In the future, police will be required to get a warrant if they want to search through someone’s cellphone, or they will risk serious legal repercussions.
2. A TV Streaming Startup Committed Copyright Infringement (ABC v Aereo)
photo adapted from “Abstract Acrylic Icon - Film Strip,” by Nicolas Raymond which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
What Happened?
An up and coming startup named ‘Aereo’ created a new way to watch broadcast television live on the internet. Aereo gave its subscribers an antenna that received data from shows played over the air. As live shows broadcasted over the air, Aereo downloaded a "personal copy" of the program to the subscriber's account where it could be streamed on a variety of devices.
What Was the Problem?
Aereo's subscription service gave users access to copyrighted content. The company didn’t pay licensing fees, nor did it believe it should. Although it created an innovative way to capture and stream media, the companies that owned the rights to the content believed that Aereo was using their material in violation of copyright law.
The Result:
The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that Aereo was committing copyright infringement. The Court equated Aereo's service with cable television, which falls within the scope of copyright law.
How Does this Affect Us?
Looking to start up a streaming service like Aereo in the future? Proceed with caution. Now that copyright issues surrounding Aereo have been discussed by the Supreme Court, there will likely be more restrictions surrounding services that attempt to offer copyrighted content without first paying the licensing fees.
More Information:
For more information, check out the full decisions here:
Riley v California
ABC, Inc v Aereo, Inc
Tech's Appeal (Part 2): The 3rd Circuit Rules on US v Auernheimer Appeal
Last month, I wrote about an important cybercrime case concerning a famous hacker, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) & the future of Coders Rights. This month, the 3rd Circuit issued a response on appeal.
Here are 5 more facts about the US v Auernheimer case:
1. US v AUERNHEIMER RECAP
US v Auernheimer is an important case that involves a hacker named Andrew ‘Weev’ Auernheimer and his decision to exploit a critical AT&T network security flaw. Weev was sentenced to almost 3.5 years of prison and charged with over $74,000 in fines in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after discovering and releasing information on a critical flaw in the AT&T network.
For a step-by-step look at the case, I encourage you to check out my earlier blog post found here. At the time I wrote my first post, the case was beginning oral arguments on appeal.
2. ON APRIL 11, 2014, THE 3rd CIRCUIT OVERTURNED WEEV'S CONVICTION BASED ON VENUE
Famous hacker 'Weev' is released after serving over a year in federal prison (pic adapted from: Penguinio K, “Weev,” July 28, 2012 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution.)
On April 11th, 2014, the 3rd Circuit overturned Weev’s conviction. The Court did not rule on the validity of the CFAA, but instead ruled on the constitutional issue of venue. Because the two men did not gain access to the email addresses in New Jersey, nor were the AT&T servers located in New Jersey when the security flaw was exploited, the 3rd Circuit felt this was a serious, constitutional issue. According to the appellate opinion, the Court ruled that the Federal Government hurt Weev’s constitutional right to have his day in court where the 'hack' in question actually took place.
3. WEEV WAS RELEASED FROM FEDERAL PRISON, BUT DESPITE THE VENUE RULING, MUCH IS LEFT UNANSWERED FOR THE CFAA
Weev was released from a federal prison in Pennsylvania after serving nearly 13 months of his 41-month sentence. While this case gives us some clarity on the issue of computer crimes and the constitutional issue of venue, there is still much to be established about the depth and breadth of the CFAA. The law, which was written in the 1980’s, is a source of controversy with regard to modern day internet usage. In some instances, a violation of the CFAA can carry large fines and lengthy prison sentences.
4. WHERE IS WEEV NOW? CREATING A NEW HEDGE FUND NAMED 'TRO LLC'.
Where is Weev now? Weev announced this week that he plans to create a hedge fund called "TRO LLC" that will help shed light on significant security flaws in publicly-traded companies. On Monday, Weev spoke with CNBC about his new idea, which will be funded primarily from the computer underground and the Internet.
5. MORE INFORMATION ON THE CFAA
There is still much to be learned about the CFAA and it is important as Internet users to be aware of this law and the way it is applied in practice. The way it is shaped can greatly affect the way we use the internet and technology in the future.
In recent cases courts have tried to say that the violation of a Terms of Use on a website or (in the case of US v Auernheimer) shedding light to security flaws constitutes a federal crime under the CFAA. Among the list of people charged under the CFAA is the late Aaron Swartz, who faced a maximum sentence of 35 years of prison time and over 1 million dollars of fines for accessing and downloading a large volume of academic files from a database called JSTOR.
Want more information on the CFAA and to learn about developing cases surrounding this law? The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a great website with information on the CFAA. Also: be sure to stay tuned to technoLAWgical for more developments in tech law issues!
This Startup's Gotta Fight! for Its Right!...to Parody?: GoldieBlox Settles Case With Beastie Boys
Earlier this year, I discussed an ongoing copyright lawsuit between a small toy company named "GoldieBlox" and the popular hip-hop band, the Beastie Boys.
To recap: GoldieBlox used the Beastie Boys Song, 'Girls' with alternate lyrics as a backup track for an online toy ad. When the ad went viral, the Beastie Boys expressed their concerns with the song's usage, and Goldieblox sued soon after. The company tried to fight for the right to continue to use the song under the legal claim of 'fair use'.
This week, GoldieBlox and the Beastie Boys set their arguments aside, and instead reached a settlement agreement out of court. According to the NY Times, as a part of its settlement agreement, Goldieblox was instructed to publicly apologize on its website and to pay a percentage of its revenues to a charity of the Beastie Boy's choosing that promotes science, technology and engineering for young girls.
GoldieBlox' public apology posted on front page of its website (pic: screen cap of www.goldieblox.com, March 20, 2014)
Looks like everything is resolved here once and for all.
To read about the copyright lawsuit, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of my Goldieblox v Beastie Boys coverage.